Travelers Insurance v. Namerow

KATZ, J.,

with whom SULLIVAN, J., joins, concurring. I disagree with the majority’s narrow reading of the special defense in this case and would conclude that the civil arson defense is indeed implicated. I do, however, agree that the trial court’s instructions were not improper because I do not consider that motive is a necessary element of that defense. Accordingly, I concur in the result.

I

I begin with our jurisprudence regarding the law of pleadings, followed by our jurisprudence regarding insurance policies. “[T]he interpretation of pleadings is always a question of law for the court ....…