This story is reprinted with permissionfrom FC&&S Legal, the industry’sonly comprehensive digital resource designed for insurancecoverage law professionals. Visit the website tosubscribe.

A federal district court in South Carolina has ruled that ahomeowner’s insurance policy did not cover a claim that theinsured’s negligence had led to her dog biting a neighbor’sdaughter.

Dog attack

A dog owned by Victoria Rogers allegedly bit Shanna Norwood’sdaughter while she was at Rogers’ home, inflicting facial injuriesrequiring emergency medical treatment.

Related: 12 factors impacting dog biteclaims

Norwood sued Rogers, asserting claims for negligence and strictpremises liability and seeking indeterminate actual and punitivedamages.

Rogers’ homeowner’s insurer, LighthouseProperty Insurance Corporation, defended Rogers in Norwood’ssuit under a full reservation of rights.

No obligation to defend or indemnify

Lighthouse then filed an action seeking a declaration that it hadno obligation to defend or indemnify Rogers in Norwood’s action,relying on the policy’s “dog” exclusion.

Lighthouse moved for summary judgment.

Dog exclusion

The dog exclusion in the Lighthouse policy excluded coveragefor:

“Bodily injury” or “property damage” caused by any dog ... ownedor kept, including temporary supervision, by you or any insured,resident, tenant or guest whether or not the injury occurs onyour premises or any other location.

The district court granted the motion.

Exclusion applied to claims

In its decision, the district court found that the dog exclusion inthe Lighthouse policy was “not ambiguous, conflicting, or capableof multiple reasonable interpretations.” In the district court’sview, the only reasonable conclusion was that the exclusion appliedto claims against Rogers arising from the dog attack on Norwood’schild.

Related: How much will a dog bite cost? About$37,200

The district court rejected Rogers’ argument that summaryjudgment was not appropriate because Norwood’s daughter’s injurieshad not been caused solely by Rogers’ dog but also by Rogers’failure to maintain control over the dog, and the exclusion did notexclude coverage for losses caused by the negligence of Rogers.

Duty to control dog

The district court found that argument “illogical.” It reasonedthat a dog had “no liability in tort, so a dog bite exclusion fromliability coverage necessarily refer[red] to the conduct ofthe person responsible for the dog.”

Rogers had a duty to control her dog and, for that reason, shewas potentially liable for damages caused by her dog, the districtcourt said. Rogers’ argument that a policy exclusion for dog bitessimply meant that the dog itself was not an insured party was “nota reasonable interpretation of the exclusion,” the district courtconcluded.

The case is Lighthouse Property Ins. Corp. v.Rogers, No. 9: 17-1553-RMG (D.S.C. Jan. 19, 2018).

Related: 10 dog breeds most often blacklisted by homeinsurance carriers

Steven A. Meyerowitz, Esq., ([email protected])is the director of FC&S Legal, the editor-in-chief of theInsurance Coverage Law Report, and the founder and president ofMeyerowitz Communications Inc. This story is reprinted withpermission from FC&S Legal, the industry’s only comprehensivedigital resource designed for insurance coveragelaw.