Van Kleek v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 857 N.W.2d 297

Jennifer Van Kleek stayed at Walter and Janet Chapman’s home to care for their 60‑lb Chow, D.J., while they were on vacation and fed, watered, and let the dog into the fenced backyard.
While caring for D.J., the dog lunged and bit Van Kleek, causing serious injury requiring reconstructive surgery.
The Chapmans’ homeowner’s policy (Farmers) defines an “insured” under Section II to include “any person … legally responsible for animals … owned by you,” and excludes bodily injury to “any insured.”
Van Kleek submitted a claim; Farmers denied coverage, asserting Van Kleek was “legally responsible” for D.J. and thus barred by the intra‑insured exclusion.
Van Kleek sued for a declaratory judgment that she was not an insured and that the policy covered her claim. The district court granted summary judgment to Farmers; Van Kleek appealed.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: it held Van Kleek was “legally responsible” for the dog (owing duties of care while in possession/control) and thus excluded from coverage under the policy’s unambiguous terms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Van Kleek was an “insured” because she was “legally responsible” for the Chapmans’ dog, thus triggering the intra‑insured exclusion	Van Kleek: “Legally responsible” should be read to require exposure of third parties (i.e., handler liability to third parties); because dog remained on premises and she didn’t expose it to the public, she was not legally responsible	Farmers: Van Kleek had custody/control/duty to feed, water, monitor, and remedy problems for D.J.; that custody created legal responsibility and potential liability, so she is an insured	Held: Van Kleek was “legally responsible.” Possession/control imposed a duty of care to prevent foreseeable harm; exclusion applies and bars coverage.

Security Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Sequoyah Marina, 246 F.2d 830 (10th Cir. 1957) (interpreting “legally responsible” to mean duty arising from possession/control and potential liability for failure to exercise it)
Malik v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 243 Wis. 2d 27 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001) (person caring for an owner’s dog while owners were on vacation was “legally responsible” and thus an insured under similar policy language)
United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. State Farm, 110 P.3d 570 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004) (babysitting grandfather was legally responsible for corralled horses because he had authority/duty to prevent escape)
American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wheeler, 287 Neb. 250 (Neb. 2014) (principles of insurance contract interpretation cited)
American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Regent Ins. Co., 288 Neb. 25 (Neb. 2014) (insurance‑policy interpretation treated as question of law)
Guzman v. Barth, 250 Neb. 763 (Neb. 1996) (keeper/keeper‑liability principles for animals cited)