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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT