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. <i>(Credit: Vadim Zaitsev)</i> 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.

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
NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 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.

Coverage & Policy Issues
Litigation
Personal Lines