Cases | State v. Bonfanti, 603 A.2d 365 | 2018
The defendant pled no contest to fourth degree arson resulting from a fire that destroyed a building he owned. The trial court ordered the defendant to make restitution to two insurance companies that insured the building and paid money on a mortgage covering it. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial court lacked authority to order restitution to the companies. The court held that the trial court acted within its authority in ordering restitution. The insurance companies were the immediate and intended victims of the defendant’s arson, which resulted in the discharge of his obligation to the mortgage holder. The defendant’s obligation would have remained intact in the absence of insurance. Restitution is an appropriate condition of probation where the insurer suffers as a direct harm of a defendant’s wrongdoing. To hold otherwise would allow the defendant to receive a windfall from his criminal activity because the parties experiencing an actual material loss happened to be insurance companies.