A federal district court in South Carolina has ruled that a homeowner's insurance policy did not cover a claim that the insured's negligence had led to her dog biting a neighbor's daughter.

The Case

A dog owned by Victoria Rogers allegedly bit Shanna Norwood's daughter while she was at Ms. Rogers' home, inflicting facial injuries requiring emergency medical treatment.

Ms. Norwood sued Ms. Rogers, asserting claims for negligence and strict premises liability and seeking indeterminate actual and punitive damages.

Ms. Rogers' homeowner's insurer, Lighthouse Property Insurance Corporation, defended Ms. Rogers in Ms. Norwood's suit under a full reservation of rights.

It then filed an action seeking a declaration that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify Ms. Rogers in Ms. Norwood's action, relying on the policy's "dog" exclusion.

Lighthouse moved for summary judgment.

The Lighthouse Policy

The dog exclusion in the Lighthouse policy excluded coverage for:

"Bodily injury" or "property damage" caused by any dog … owned or kept, including temporary supervision, by you or any insured, resident, tenant or guest whether or not the injury occurs on your premises or any other location.

The District Court's Decision

The district court granted the motion.

In its decision, the district court found that the dog exclusion in the Lighthouse policy was "not ambiguous, conflicting, or capable of multiple reasonable interpretations." In the district court's view, the only reasonable conclusion was that the exclusion applied to claims against Ms. Rogers arising from the dog attack on Ms. Norwood's child.

The district court rejected Ms. Rogers' argument that summary judgment was not appropriate because Ms. Norwood's daughter's injuries had not been caused solely by Ms. Rogers' dog but also by Ms. Rogers' failure to maintain control over the dog, and the exclusion did not exclude coverage for losses caused by the negligence of Ms. Rogers.

The district court found that argument "illogical." It reasoned that a dog had "no liability in tort, so a dog bite exclusion from liability coverage necessarily refer[red] to the conduct of the person responsible for the dog." Ms. Rogers had a duty to control her dog and, for that reason, she was potentially liable for damages caused by her dog, the district court said. Ms. Rogers' argument that a policy exclusion for dog bites simply meant that the dog itself was not an insured party was "not a reasonable interpretation of the exclusion," the district court concluded.