Judge Urges, But Can’t Order, Safeco To Pay Woman For Loss Insurance Firm Refused To Pay After Estranged Husband Burned Her House

An insurance company need not pay a woman for the loss of her home in a fire set by her estranged husband but should consider doing so anyway, a King County Superior Court judge says.

The language of the homeowners policy, which barred payment for intentional damage by the covered parties, and appeals court rulings required the verdict in favor of Safeco Insurance Co., Judge Robert S. Lasnik said Friday.

“But the issue is one where the result is very harsh,” Lasnik added.

He told Safeco lawyer Robert Riede the company might be better off paying Kittis Bolduc, who sought money to rebuild the house in Kent and replace lost contents worth as much as $50,000.

Insurance companies spend heavily on public relations, and advertising during one quarter of the University of Washington football game Saturday probably will cost Safeco more than Bolduc’s losses, Lasnik said.

The cause also could boost public pressure for legislation that would bar the kind of exclusions that let Safeco off the hook, the judge said.

At the same time, he added, “these are not issues the court has any control over.”

Bolduc, 38, who moved out of the house six months before the fire, wept after the ruling and said she would appeal.

“I’m just going to keep fighting for my kids,” she said. “We will go higher. We can’t stop.”

Bolduc, who has a 6-year-old daughter and 4-year-old son, left her husband in mid-1996 to escape what prosecutors have described as violent domestic abuse.

She was moving her goods back into the house amid divorce proceedings when the house was destroyed by fire Jan. 24.

Joseph Bolduc, 48, didn’t contest a first-degree arson charge and was sentenced to 41 months in prison. He told police he would gladly go to prison as long as his wife didn’t get the house.

Riede told reporters he would discuss Lasnik’s suggestions with Safeco executives but added that unless Safeco is allowed to control its risks, the cost of insurance would rise for other policy holders.

“If an exception is made in this case, then what about other types of cases where coverage is excluded?” Riede asked.

For example, he noted that some people this year lost their homes to mudslides and got no insurance payments because their policies didn’t cover mudslides.