Mr. Watson's vehicle was uninsured; Mr. Swanigan's vehicle was insured by Founders Insurance Company.

Mr. Swanigan sued Founders, seeking uninsured motorists (“UIM”) benefits.

The trial court denied Mr. Swanigan's motion for partial summary judgment and ruled in favor of Founders, finding that his damages had not arisen from a “use” of Mr. Watson's vehicle.

Mr. Swanigan appealed.

How did the Indiana appellate court rule?

* * *

2. The Labrador Retriever/Boxer Bite

Melissa LaBarre, Sophia Bell's teacher, was at the Bells' residence to drop off a kitten. Ms. LaBarre brought her dog, Jeb, with her on the trip, because after leaving the Bells' Ms. LaBarre intended to drop Jeb off at her parents' home while she ran errands. Ms. LaBarre left Jeb, a 65-pound Labrador Retriever/Boxer mix, inside her vehicle parked in the Bells' driveway while she went into the Bells' residence. Ms. LaBarre was inside the Bells' residence between 15 to 45 minutes. At the completion of their visit, Ms. LaBarre, Sophia, and Sophia's mother, Theresa Bell, went out to the driveway. Jeb bit Sophia, and she experienced serious injuries to her face, requiring a number of reconstructive surgeries.

Ms. LaBarre sought coverage of the Bells' claims from her automobile insurance carrier, State Farm Insurance Company. State Farm brought a declaratory judgment action, and the parties moved for summary judgment.

How did the New Mexico federal district court rule?

* * *

3. One Pit Bull Terrier's Bite

Cindy Walden, an employee at a bar and grill in Gladstone, Missouri, said that she was walking to her place of employment when she saw Kenneth Smith's pick-up truck in the parking lot. Ms. Walden said that Mr. Smith was sitting in the parked vehicle and had two pit bull terriers in the cab of his truck. She asserted that she approached the truck and stood outside the driver's side door when one of Mr. Smith's dogs lunged through the open driver's side window and bit her on the upper lip. According to Ms. Walden, Mr. Smith did not have insurance but she had several automobile liability policies with American Family Mutual Insurance Company.

Ms. Walden sued Mr. Smith and American Family. She claimed that Mr. Smith was negligent in that he failed to warn Ms. Walden of the harm posed by the dangerous propensities of the dog, failed to restrain or otherwise prevent the dog from biting her, and failed to restrict or otherwise prevent people from coming into contact with the dog.

Ms. Walden also sought a declaratory judgment that she was entitled to coverage under the uninsured motorist (“UIM”) provision in her American Family policies. She alleged that Mr. Smith was an uninsured motorist and “was engaged in the operation and use of his motor vehicle, was in the process of transporting his dog, and failed to contain said dog,” resulting in her injuries.

The trial court granted American Family's motion for summary judgment, and Ms. Walden appealed.

How did the Missouri appellate court rule?

* * * 

4. Another Dog Bite and Insurance Coverage Fight

In December 2012, a New York trial court ruled in favor of underinsured motorist coverage where a dog in a parked car bit a woman walking by. The insurer appealed.

How did the appellate court rule?

* * * 

5. Four Dogs (OK, Not a Bite, but a Parked Car Was Involved)

After Ramon Rebeles parked on a road, four dogs allegedly bolted out of his vehicle and Patricia Gradek allegedly was injured when her bicycle collided with one of the dogs on a nearby bicycle path. The Rebeleses' insurance carrier, IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company, filed an action alleging that the incident did not trigger insurance coverage because it did not result from a “use” of the Rebeleses' motor vehicle. The Gradeks claimed that the incident arose out of the unintentional unloading of the dogs, which constituted a use of the motor vehicle.

After a trial, the court found that the dogs “had completed the process of unloading” from the Rebeleses' vehicle when the incident allegedly had occurred. Therefore, the trial court concluded that Ms. Gradek's injury had not resulted from a “use” of the motor vehicle, and it entered judgment in favor of IDS.

The Gradeks appealed.

How did the California appellate court rule?