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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT