ILNews

COA: Insurer has no liability for dog bite injuries

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners Insurance Co. on the issue of whether it had liability to cover the damages sought by the parents of a boy bit by a dog on the insured’s property. The person residing at the home, whose dog bit the boy, was not considered an insured under the policy.

Ginger Hawk owned the house in Gas City and had it insured by Auto-Owners. Michael Carl, Hawk’s cousin, lived in the home. Hawk testified that she would drive by the home a few times a year but never went inside the house. Braydon Didion was allegedly bit in the face by Carl’s dog while Braydon played in the yard in front of the home. Bradyon’s parents sued Carl in July 2008 and added Hawk to the complaint. The Didions received default judgment. Hawk did not notify Auto-Owners about the incident and lawsuit until July 2009 when she first learned of the lawsuit after discovering a lien on the house and then speaking to Carl.

The trial court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment finding Carl did not live with Hawk at the time of the incident and he is not an insured under the policy.

The Didions argued that since Carl is a blood relative of Hawk and he “resided” with her in the Gas City house, he is an “insured” under the policy.

“… we do not believe that any ordinary policyholder of reasonable intelligence would understand an absentee landlord who does no more than drive by a house every so often to ‘reside’ in that house,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote in David Didion and Kristi Didion as Parents and Legal Guardians of Brayden Didion v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 27A02-1303-PL-232.

The majority also addressed whether Auto-Owners received adequate notice of the loss, which it affirmed it did not.

“We have little trouble concluding that the length of delay in this case was unreasonable. The facts of this case amply support our conclusion: in the over one year that passed between the Loss and Ginger’s notification to her agent, the Didions’ lawsuit had not only been filed but had already proceeded to default judgment regarding liability and damages,” Bradford wrote.

Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote in his concurring opinion that the appeals court should not have looked at the question of the timeliness of the notice because the lack of coverage inquiry is dispositive.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT