On appeal, defendant argues that because the pertinent policy language is unambiguous, the contract should be enforced according to its terms and plaintiff's recovery barred. Specifically, defendant contends that by setting the insured premises on fire, plaintiff's son, who was “an insured,” violated a policy exclusion entitled “Intentional Acts,” which states that it "[does] not pay for loss which results from an act committed by or at the direction of an insured and with the intent to cause a loss” (emphasis added). Defendant further maintains that there is no violation of Insurance Law § 3404(f)(1)(A), that the exclusionary clause of the policy is valid under New York State law and that the exclusionary clause applies in the instant matter.

We hold that the subject exclusion impermissibly restricts the coverage mandated by statute and afforded the innocent insured (Insurance Law § 3404; Reed v Federal Ins. Co., , 71 NY2d 581). The New York standard fire insurance policy is codified in Insurance Law § 3404(e). Any policy that insures against the peril of fire must incorporate “terms and provisions no less favorable to the insured than those contained in the [standard policy]” (Insurance Law § 3404(f)(1)(A)). The standard policy exclusion provision entitled “Conditions suspending or restricting insurance,” states that damages will be disclaimed “for loss occurring * * * while the hazard is increased by any means within the control or knowledge of the insured” (emphasis added). The standard policy is the minimum level of coverage permissible for an insurance company to issue.

In Reed, we upheld the right of an innocent insured property owner to recover on a fire insurance policy that had been damaged by the independent willful misconduct of another insured. “[A]s a matter of fairness and equity * * * the independent wrongdoing of one insured should not bar recovery as to the coinsured under a policy that names and is intended to protect her” (id., at 588).

Through use of the language “the insured” in the standard policy, the statute delineates independent liabilities and obligations as to each insured to refrain from incendiary acts. Accordingly, to the extent that the “Intentional Acts” exclusion creates joint liability and bars coverage to plaintiff, an innocent insured not implicated in her son's incendiary act, the exclusion provision is unenforceable under Insurance Law § 3404(f)(1)(A).

As Supreme Court aptly noted in the present case, the “an insured” language contained in defendant's policy “offers an innocent party significantly less coverage than the language 'the insured'. Since the latter phrase is that adopted by the Legislature in the Insurance Law, use of the former violates that statute's requirement that all fire policies offer the level of coverage provided in the standard policy” (Lane v Security Mut. Ins. Co., supra, 175 Misc 2d , at 620).