Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Steele
3:24-cv-00684
M.D. Penn.Jun 16, 2025Background
- Foremost Insurance provided Steele with a premises liability insurance policy covering 71 Barney St., Larksville, PA, but with express exclusions for injuries caused by dangerous dogs or animals with a bite history known to the insured.
- On August 6, 2023, Sarah Brown was attacked and injured by Michael Price’s dog, Miami, outside her own residence at 65 Barney St., which Price rented from Steele.
- Brown sued Price and Steele for negligence in Pennsylvania state court, alleging both knew of Miami’s dangerous history.
- Foremost sought a declaratory judgment in federal court that it owed neither defense nor indemnity to Steele in that action based on policy exclusions and location of the injury.
- Price and Steele failed to respond, and Foremost moved for default judgment declaring it had no duty to defend or indemnify either in the state case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Foremost owe Steele or Price coverage for the dog bite incident? | Dog bite did not occur on covered premises; exclusions apply for dangerous dogs with bite history | No response/defense | No coverage owed due to off-premises injury and dog exclusions |
| Is Foremost obligated to defend Steele in the state lawsuit? | No duty to defend since incident is outside coverage scope and exclusions apply | No response/defense | No duty to defend based on policy terms and state law |
| Can Foremost withdraw counsel provided to Steele? | Foremost has no ongoing obligation given no duty to defend/indemnify | No response/defense | Foremost may withdraw its counsel for Steele |
| Is default judgment appropriate against Steele and Price? | Defendants failed to answer/defend, satisfying requirements for default | No response | Default judgment against Steele and Price granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006) (duty to defend and indemnify is determined by policy language and complaint’s allegations)
- Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. v. Haver, 725 A.2d 743 (Pa. 1999) (insurer’s duty assessed by comparing complaint allegations to policy terms)