Answer:
Hi
The insurance company should not pay as it is explained that the insurance policy did not cover against vandalism or theft, and a fire is the product of an act of vandalism.
Explanation:
To avoid this type of problem, there are the multi-risk policies of the home, which offer coverage for damages due to vandalism, to cover the damages caused by malicious intent by third parties. This coverage usually includes damages caused by people other than the policyholder, their relatives, employees or people living in the insured home. Some insurers include damages caused by tumultuarial actions in activities of meetings or demonstrations, as well as the existence of legal strikes, unless the aforementioned actions had the character of a mutiny or popular uproar. But we must consider that not all vandalism situations are covered by insurance, and situations such as graffiti, inscriptions, graffiti drawings are usually not covered, but depend on each specific policy.
Considering the situation described above, given that an arsonist burned down the house, the insurance company would not pay for the damages.
Since the burning of the house was caused by an arsonist, this implies that the damage is a form of vandalism or burglary and not an accident.
However, since Juan only purchased an insurance policy that did not cover vandalism or burglary thus, the insurance company would not pay for the damages.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that the insurance company would not pay.
Learn more about insurance policy here: https://brainly.com/question/16109503
