Appeals Court: Auto Insurance Does Not Cover Dog Bite Injury

June 10, 2011

  • June 10, 2011 at 4:09 pm
    AZ Ins Man says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Dumb lawyers. How much in legal fees did this ultimate conclusion cost everyone? The insurer has to defend a lawsuit like that and people wonder why insurance rates are so high?

    Most every homeowner policy denies any dog bite or certainly the 6-7 primary breeds known for that. Why in the world would an auto policy cover it?

    For the attorneys: By the way, if a ‘driver” robs a convenience store and shoots someone, there will be no coverage under the auto policy if one exists…

    any more help, let me know / idiots.

    • June 10, 2011 at 4:55 pm
      Not necessarily says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      There are specific exclusions in an HO policy, but none in an auto policy I believe.

      The decision seems to revolve around “use” of the vehicle. Seems that it did not get there on it’s own, someone had to “use” it.

      Pretty poor decision.

  • June 10, 2011 at 6:35 pm
    Calif Critic says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Great decision for insurance and consumers. The appeals court has narrowed and clarified the previous decisions of the supreme court. Finally some sanity. Of course…the supremes will undoubtedly overturn this and say their prior rulings clearly state they want the auto insurance policy to cover this type dog in the car claim.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*