Definition of Insured Bar to Coverage on HO

We have had a claim denied under a homeowners policy and would like your help in explaining the denial to our insured.

Here is what happened: our insured is currently using crutches to get around, and so is unable to walk her dogs. A neighbor volunteered to walk them for her. But in returning home, one dog slipped its leash and unexpectedly attacked our insured's young son. The little boy was severely bitten. We turned in a claim, since the policy says that under section II an insured “also means with respect to animals or watercraft to which this policy applies, any person or organization legally responsible for these animals.”

But the insurer says the injuries are not covered. We think the severability of insurance clause should prevail. What is your opinion?

Ohio Subscriber

The insurer is correct. The severability of insurance clause does not apply in this instance. That clause serves to give all insureds liability coverage in regards to claims by third parties. It was not intended to give coverage to one insured in a suit against another.

Exclusion 2.f. (of the 1991 ISO homeowners; exclusion F.6. of the 2000 forms) precludes coverage for “bodily injury” to the named insured or to an insured within the meaning of part a. or b. of “insured” as defined. The insured's son meets definition 3.a. by virtue of being both a resident of the named insured's household, and the named insured's relative.