A US court found that cover for loss caused by physical harm, bodily injury or assault between “family members” included assault by the ex-husband because the divorced couple shared the custody of their child with the parenting plan that called for joint decision-making.
The divorce order required the husband to sell their property or refinance the debts. Before the house was dealt with, the ex-wife went to the house to pick up the child (who was not there). The ex-husband beat her unconscious, doused her in petrol and set her and the house on fire causing her severe injuries and destroying the house.
The policy excluded loss arising out of any act committed by or at the direction of the insured with the “intent to cause loss” but the exclusion did not apply to an insured if the loss was caused “by an act of domestic abuse by another insured” including the intentional harm by another family member. The court said that older editions of Webster’s Dictionary defined “family” as a “group of individuals living under one roof”, or “the basic biosocial unit”, which did not fit the circumstances. But more modern editions of the dictionary defined “family” as “the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children”, or “a group consisting of parents and their children”. The court found that the ex-wife met the definitions because she and the assailant were raising their child under a parenting plan which granted them shared custody and called for joint decision-making. Thus, they were two parents rearing their child. The court said that an average person purchasing insurance would understand the term “family” falling under the more modern definition and found for the claimant against the insurer.
Undefined terms like “family” can be fairly open-ended. In South Africa the word “family” standing alone will not require the members of the family to be under one roof. “Family” has an extended meaning in South Africa, as any funeral insurer will tell you.