Insurers need to be precise when drafting exclusions, particularly when those exclusions concern animals. When an exclusion uses non-specific terms, those terms should be defined in the policy in order to prevent a suit like the one the Goldbergers brought against State Farm, the ICLC wrote. (Credit: Vadim Zaitsev)
The Arizona Court of Appeals has addressed the increasingly common language property insurers use in policies to preclude or limit the coverage for animals or damage caused by animals.
The Goldbergers were the owners of a residential rental property with an insurance policy for that property through State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm). The policy was a rental dwelling policy. The Goldbergers filed a claim for $75,000 worth of coverage after their tenant "allowed" feral cats to "access" the property and cause "accidental damage." State Farm denied the claim, citing an exclusion in the policy for damage caused by "domestic animals." The Goldbergers disagreed and sued State Farm, alleging breach of contract and insurance bad faith.
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
