American Family Mutual Insuran v. David Williams
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14539
7th Cir.2016Background
- Visitor David Williams was house-sitting for Anthony and Jeanette Van de Venter in Indiana when he twice took their dog Emma outside; on the second outing Emma lunged toward a neighbor’s bark, pulling Williams down and injuring his shoulder.
- Williams sued the Van de Venters for negligence; American Family (AmFam), the homeowners insurer, sued for a declaratory judgment that it owed no defense or indemnity.
- The policy’s personal-liability section defined an “insured” to include “any person ... legally responsible for a[n] ... animal owned by [a named insured ...] to which [the policy’s personal-liability coverages] apply,” but excluded coverage for “bodily injury to any insured.”
- AmFam argued Williams was “legally responsible” (owner, keeper, or bailee) of Emma when injured and so was an insured whose own claim was barred by the intra-insured exclusion.
- The district court ruled for Williams and the Van de Venters; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, applying Indiana law to interpret “legally responsible.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (AmFam) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams was “legally responsible” for the dog (thus an insured) | Williams was only a guest who briefly attached a leash and accompanied the dog; he was not an owner, keeper, or bailee | Williams exercised control when walking the dog and so became legally responsible (owner/keeper/bailee) | Williams was not owner, keeper, or bailee; not “legally responsible” under Indiana law; not an insured |
| Whether AmFam owes duty to defend and indemnify Van de Venters against Williams’s suit | Duty exists because Williams was not an insured for that incident; intra-insured exclusion doesn’t apply | No duty because intra-insured exclusion bars coverage if claimant is an insured | AmFam owes duties to defend and indemnify; intra-insured exclusion inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Steimel v. Wemert, 823 F.3d 902 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment/cross-motions)
- Ball v. Kotter, 723 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2013) (choice-of-law: apply state law where risk is located)
- Dunn v. Meridian Mut. Ins. Co., 836 N.E.2d 249 (Ind. 2005) (use law of principal location of insured risk)
- Allgood v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co., 836 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. 2005) (policy terms interpreted from perspective of ordinary policyholder)
- Holiday Hosp. Franchising, Inc. v. AMCO Ins. Co., 983 N.E.2d 574 (Ind. 2013) (unambiguous policy language given ordinary meaning)
- Ross v. Lowe, 619 N.E.2d 911 (Ind. 1993) (owners and keepers can be liable for dog-related negligence)
- Kottlowski v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 670 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (elements of bailment: exclusive delivery and acceptance)
- Terre Haute First Nat’l Bank v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 634 N.E.2d 1336 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (duty to defend depends on nature of claim, not its merit)