Nebraska Court: No Insurance Coverage for Woman Bitten by Dog

By | December 22, 2014

  • December 22, 2014 at 1:32 pm
    Hmmmm says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Interesting decision….. just because the homeowner insurance denied coverage under the HO policy — does that make the homeowner (dog owner) have no responsibility? i would think that the injured party could still bring legal action against the HO.

  • December 22, 2014 at 2:09 pm
    Jordan Frank says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I believe there is a typo in the 3rd paragraph. I believe it should say “not insured” rather than “insured”. This typo made the article very difficult to understand.

    • December 23, 2014 at 2:18 pm
      kristenb says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      The paragraph is worded correctly. The policy excludes liability coverage for insureds, i.e. insureds cannot be liable to themselves.

  • December 22, 2014 at 2:15 pm
    Bill Wilson says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I don’t know what Farmers’ HO policy says, but the attorney is incorrect about most HO policies excluding insured vs. insured claims for occurrences such as this. The ISO HO forms would respond to this claim.

    Assuming ISO HO form language, here is the definition of “insured” and the liability exclusion for BI to an “insured”:

    DEFINITION:

    5. “Insured” means:
    a. You and residents of your household who are:
    (1) Your relatives; or
    (2) Other persons under the age of 21 and in your care or the care of a resident of your household who is your relative;
    b. A student enrolled in school full-time, as defined by the school, who was a resident of your household before moving out to attend school, provided the student is under the age of:
    (1) 24 and your relative; or
    (2) 21 and in your care or the care of a resident of your household who is your relative; or
    c. Under Section II:
    (1) With respect to animals or watercraft to which this policy applies, any person or organization legally responsible for these animals or watercraft which are owned by you or any person described in 5.a. or b. “Insured” does not mean a person or organization using or having custody of these animals or watercraft in the course of any “business” or without consent of the owner; or
    (2) With respect to a “motor vehicle” to which this policy applies:
    (a) Persons while engaged in your employ or that of any person described in 5.a. or b.; or
    (b) Other persons using the vehicle on an “insured location” with your consent.
    Under both Sections I and II, when the word an immediately precedes the word “insured”, the words an “insured” together mean one or more “insureds”.

    EXCLUSION:

    “Bodily injury” to you or an “insured” as defined under definitions 5.a. or b.

    So, under Definition 5.c.(1), a neighbor caring for your dog IS an “insured” under your policy…but only where they are “legally responsible” for the animal, for example, if their negligence lead to the dog getting loose and biting a neighborhood jogger. If the legal responsibility for the occurrence rests with the named insured and not the neighbor as appears to be the claim in your scenario, then I don’t think the neighbor is an “insured” in that situation. The neighbor is only an “insured” where the neighbor is alleged to be legally liable.

    However, even if the neighbor is an “insured,” the exclusion for BI to an ‘insured” (see above) only applies to the insured categories 5.a. and 5. b. The neighbor is an insured under 5.c. so the exclusion for cross liability lawsuits (insured vs. insured) does not apply here.

    The question is whether the Farmers’ HO policy has the same language as the ISO HO policies. If so, then it sounds like this claim never should have been litigated. If not, then this is yet one more example of why personal lines products are NOT commodities. A seemingly small difference like this can mean millions in uncovered claims and/or defense costs.

    • December 22, 2014 at 3:14 pm
      Bill Wilson says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Someone sent me a Farmers HO policy from Nevada. If the Nebraska form is the same, then that policy appears to NOT cover the claim. That would distinguish it from the ISO HO policies which DO respond to such claims.

      Again, this illustrates that seemingly minor differences in policy language can result in HUGE differences in coverage. Don’t believe the marketing mantras like “SAME COVERAGE, Better Value” or “You get the SAME COVERAGE, often for less.” It is NOT the same coverage.

      • December 22, 2014 at 5:04 pm
        Bill Wilson says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        I may have spoken too soon. Someone sent me another edition of a Farmers HO policy that appears to cover this. So, perhaps I’d better shut up until the actual language in the form being litigated is revealed.

  • December 22, 2014 at 3:05 pm
    Hmmmm says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Thanks Bill for the ISO take on this.

  • December 29, 2014 at 1:15 pm
    knowall says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Is domestic abuse covered too then?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*