In Ambassador Ins. Co. v. Montes, 76 N.J. 477, 388 A.2d 603 (1978), the Court considered a claim on behalf of a person who was inadvertently killed in an arson fire set by the insured. Ambassador conceded that the policy's clause extending coverage applied and that the policy contained no exclusion for intentional acts by the insured. Nonetheless, it argued that the Court should deny coverage because "public policy prohibits insurance indemnity for the civil consequences of an insured's intentional wrongdoing." Id. at 482, 388 A.2d 603. The Court rejected Ambassador's position because that principle "should not come into play when the wrongdoer is not benefitted and an innocent third person receives the protection afforded by the insurance." Id. at 483, 388 A.2d 603. The Court considered that the wrongdoer would not benefit because the insurance company could seek reimbursement from him. Id. at 484-86, 388 A.2d 603.