HOMEOWNER POLICIES EQUALLY ON THE RISK FOR DOG BITE. Goeman v. Allstate Ins. Co. Minnesota Court of Appeals. Published. Filed December 19, 2006.
The insured owned a personal residence in Minnesota and a
lake cabin in Wisconsin.
The insured had both their lake cabin and personal
residence insured with homeowner policies providing them
with $100,000 in personal liability coverage, with separate
companies. The insured’s dog bit a child at the lake cabin,
the lake cabin insurer assumed the defense and paid the
eventual jury verdict. The lake cabin insurer brought a
declaratory judgment action against the residence insurer to
pay one-half of the jury verdict.
Both policies had “other insurance” clauses that provided
excess coverage, and so the court applied the “closest to
the risk” test to determine which or both policies were
responsible for the dog bite damages. The policy on the
Wisconsin cabin was limited to coverage for events occurring
with the state of Wisconsin.
The insurer of the Minnesota residence argued that due to that restriction the lake cabin policy contemplated the risk of the dog bite with greater specificity and so was responsible for all the damages. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the Minnesota residence insurer.
The Court of Appeals reversed, and noted that the policy on the Minnesota residence included coverage for incidents occurring in all 50 states and so both policies contemplated the risk of the dog bite occurring at the Wisconsin cabin. The Court of Appeals held that both policies equally contemplated the risk of the dog bite injury and so neither is closest to the risk and so both policies are equally responsible for the resulting damages.
Click here for prior court summaries. If you have any questions, feel free to contact any of our litigation attorneys: Scott Kelly or William Partridge