A Dog is Nothing More than a Dog
Post 4859
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v5btr2d-a-dog-is-nothing-more-than-a-dog.html and at https://youtu.be/62V–qmjwDw
Lana Sloan appealed from summary judgment entered in favor of Farm Bureau Town and Country Insurance Company of Missouri (“Farm Bureau”) while she sought medical payments for injuries she received from a less than obedient and loving dog.
In Lana Sloan v. Farm Bureau Town And Country Insurance Company Of Missouri, and Jesse Clark, Joseph Webb, and Bobbette Webb, No. SD37751, Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, In Division (August 15, 2024) summary judgment established a dog was not a part of the premises.
BACKGROUND
Joseph Webb owns residential property insured by Farm Bureau. Webb leased the insured premises to Jesse Clark, who owns a dog. Webb neither owns nor cares for the dog. Clark’s dog bit Sloan while she was walking on a public roadway adjacent to but not on the insured premises. Sloan made a claim under the medical payments provision of the Farm Bureau policy, on which Joseph Webb was the only named insured.
The Farm Bureau policy provides coverage for medical payments to non-insureds when such person sustains bodily injury: On an insured premises with the permission of any insured, or elsewhere, if the bodily injury: Arises out of a condition on the insured premises; is caused by the activities of you, or your relatives if you are a person; is caused by a residence employee in the course of employment by you, or your relatives if you are a person; or is caused by an animal other than livestock owned by or in the care of you, or your relatives if you are a person.
Farm Bureau denied Sloan’s claim. She sued alleging that Farm Bureau was liable under § 375.420 for its vexatious refusal to pay her. The only dispute on summary judgment was the applicability of section 2.a, that is, whether Sloan’s injuries, which occurred off the insured premises, arose out of a condition on the insured premises. The circuit court found the dog was not a condition on the insured premises, the loss was not covered under the policy, and Sloan could not prove the dog was a condition on the insured premises.
APPLICABLE LAW
The statutes allow penalties to be assessed against an insurer when it refuses to make payment, upon demand and in accordance with the policy, vexatiously, willfully, and without reasonable cause. Because “loss” is modified by the prepositional phrase “under a policy” in § 375.420, only those losses insured or covered by the policy satisfy the statute. Where an insurer had no duty to pay under the insurance policy, there cannot be a claim for vexatious refusal to pay.
The interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law. When a term within an insurance policy is undefined, the court will apply the plain meaning, i.e., the meaning that would be attached by an ordinary person of average understanding if purchasing insurance.
DISCUSSION
Sloan contended her loss was covered by the policy because a dog kept on the insured premises is a condition on the insured premises from which an off-premises attack and injury can arise.
It is apparent that “premises” in common parlance and in the policy itself contemplates the land and more or less permanently affixed structures contained thereon. It does not contemplate easily movable property which may be located on the property at a given time or even on a regular or permanent basis.
A dog, whether permanently kenneled or tethered on the property, is not a part of the premises.
The noncoverage of the loss in this case is consistent with the principle that landlords generally are not liable for injuries to others caused by a tenant’s dog. Ownership of real property does not make one an owner, possessor, or harborer of the domestic animals found on that property. There is a serious distinction between real property and domestic animals kept on that property.
The Court of Appeals concluded that Sloan’s injuries did not arise out of a condition on the insured premises.
A dog is a living breathing animal. It can live at a piece of real property, just like an owner or tenant may live at the premises but neither the owner, tenant, nor pets are part of the property. Sloan needed to prove that her injuries arose out of a condition of the insured premises but could not and the judgment, therefore, in favor of the insurer was affirmed.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Like this:
Loading…
