Former wife of Oconomowoc man who burned down their home will not receive an insurance payout, state Supreme Court rules
Evan Frank
The former wife of an Oconomowoc man who intentionally burned down the couple's shared Lac La Belle home in June 2013 will not receive an insurance payout, according to a recent ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court
The Supreme Court's 4-3 decision on June 8 affirmed the decision of the court of appeals that Kemper Insurance Co. was not required to provide coverage for the loss of the home.
Kemper filed a lawsuit in December 2013 against Ismet and Ydbi Islami — about six months before Ydbi was charged with burning down their home. According to county tax records, the property was valued at $818,000 the year it burned down. Ydbi Islami was convicted of arson in 2017.
Ismet argued that because she was the sole owner of the home, the sole name insured on the policy and innocent in the arson case, her former husband's actions should not affect the legitimacy of her claim.
But attorneys for Kemper said in response that Ismet Islami's claim could be denied under the "concealment and fraud" section of the contract she signed with the company.
The Islamis married in 1978, according to the decision. In 1988, Ydbi was convicted of a number of crimes, including stalking and sexual assault of a minor. After those incidents, Ismet obtained a legal separation instead of a divorce, for religious reasons.
Ismet received sole ownership of the home as part of the separation, which occurred in 1998.
According to the Supreme Court's decision, Ismet argued Ydbi is not her spouse and therefore not an "insured" for purposes of the policy. Secondly, Ismet contended that the policy's "concealment of fraud" condition was ambiguous, conflicts with the policy's "intentional loss" exclusion and therefore does not bar coverage.
She also argued that she is an innocent insured and the victim of domestic abuse, which Ismet said required Kemper to provide coverage under Wisconsin's domestic abuse exception to a property insurer's intentional act exclusion.
The Supreme Court held that Ydbi is insured under the terms of the policy and because Wisconsin's marriage laws recognize Ydbi as Ismet's spouse. The court said the policy's "concealment or fraud" condition precludes coverage for Ismet, which was a conclusion unaffected by the policy's "intentional loss" exclusion.
Lastly, the court held that the state's domestic abuse exception did not apply because the record lacked evidence that showed Ydbi's arson constituted domestic abuse against Ismet.
Justice Rebecca Bradley delivered the majority opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justices Patience Roggensack and Brian Hagedorn.
Justice Jill Karofsky filed the dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Rebecca Dallet. Karofsky stated the case was about domestic abuse.
"The arson combined with Ydbi's past criminal record is more than enough evidence for the question of whether a reasonable person in Ismet's position would reasonably fear imminent harm to go to a jury," Karofsky wrote.
Karofsky also stated the state's domestic abuse exception did "not require actual bodily harm or that the victim actually be physically present at the crime scene."
Contact Evan Frank at (262) 361-9138 or evan.frank@jrn.com. Follow him on Twitter at @Evanfrank_LCP.
