Dog owners with homeowners or renters insurance should be covered in the event the animals injure someone. (Bigstock)

Allstate Insurance has filed suit against an insured in order to be released from liability in a claim resulting from a fatal dog attack.

In February, three dogs owned by San Antonio couple Christian and Abilene Moreno got loose and proceeded to maul and kill an elderly man who was visiting neighbors. The attack was reportedly still in progress when police and firefighters arrived at the “horrific scene.”

Christian and Abilene were visiting Christian’s parents and had taken the dogs with them. The event occurred outside his parents home, which is insured by Allstate. They have requested that the insurer provide them with defense and indemnity based on their coverage.

The victim in the attack was Ramon Najera, 81, who died from his injuries on Feb. 24, according to local news reports. Christian and Abilene Moreno were arrested on charges of a dangerous dog attack. They have subsequently been sued for negligence by Najera’s widow, who also was attacked but survived, for $1 million dollars in damages.

Two other people also were injured in the attack.

The Morenos filed a claim with Allstate. Allstate denied liability for the claim, stating that only the homeowners, Christian’s parents, are insureds under the homeowner’s policy in question. Allstate also filed suit in order to be released from liability in the case.

Coverage analysis

Looking at a standard Allstate homeowner’s policy can help illuminate the carrier’s position as well as the coverage issues at hand.

First, it’s important to understand who is an insured under a homeowner’s policy. Insured is a defined term on most homeowners policies, so it is clearly understood who is covered by the terms of the policy. Under the ISO HO 00 03, “insured” is defined as, “you and residents of your household who are relatives or other persons under the age of 21 and in your care or the care of a resident of your household.”

The policy also includes relevant language related to the care of pets: “With respect to animals or watercraft to which this policy applies, any person or organization legally responsible for these animals or watercraft which are owned by [the insured] … This does not mean a person or organization using or having custody of these animals or watercraft in the course of any ‘business’ or without consent of the owner.”

Notice first that in order to be considered an insured, relatives must be residents of the household. News reports indicate Christian and Abilene Moreno were visiting the insured residence. This means that they are not resident relatives, and are not insureds as defined in the policy.

But there’s another issue: The policy includes language related to liability that indicates a person is an “insured” if they are legally responsible for animals that are owned by the named insured or anyone defined as an “insured” in the policy.

Elsewhere in the policy, under a section dedicated to medical payments, there is coverage if injury or damage is caused by an animal owned by or in the care of the insured.

We have already established that Christian and Abilene are not insureds. If Christian and Abilene left the animals in the care of the homeowners (Christian’s parents), coverage may apply.

So is there any coverage at all?

Here, we need to look at the pet owners and whether or not they have a homeowners or tenants policy for their residence. If they have a homeowners’ policy, then they are the insureds and coverage applies. A tenants policy works the same way. The policy in question should be looked at for coverage for this incident and not the homeowners policy for the property where the event occurred.

The Morenos’ dogs were euthanized by San Antonio Animal Care Services shortly after the attack.

See also: