A meeting with a doctor was held during which the doctor recommended that all fourteen people should receive rabies shots. All fourteen began receiving shots before the examination of the puppy was completed. Each person had received two shots when it was found that the puppy did not die of rabies.

The homeowner put in a claim for medical expenses for the shots, and the carrier denied liability on the theory that there was no bodily injury. We believe that the claim should be paid because the doctor advised everyone to begin treatment immediately since waiting another day would have made treatment ineffective. Also, we think that even if this would not be deemed to be a medical expense incurred because of bodily injury, the doctrine of reasonable expectations would apply. Please advise us of your opinion.

Wisconsin Subscriber

A

The costs incurred in this case are not compensable by the medical payments coverage. The policy states that medical payments are covered if they result from an accident causing bodily injury. Bodily injury, a term highlighted to indicate that it is a defined term, means “bodily harm, sickness or disease, including required care, loss of services, and death that results.”

Although taking preventative shots was thought to be necessary in this situation, in reality it was not; there was no bodily harm or sickness that resulted from contact with the puppy.

As you are aware, the doctrine of reasonable expectations, see Reasonable Expectations is being increasingly applied to homeowners and personal auto coverages. However, the reasonableness of the expectation must generally be objectively—not subjectively—reasonable.

The policy provisions relating to medical payments are not obscure and an insured reading the policy would find that the costs incurred are not covered by the policy. Furthermore, in the situation you describe there is no allegation of misleading statements, either verbal or in advertising, that might lead the insured to assume that there was coverage. Objectively there does not seem to be any basis for the insured to expect coverage when there was no actual bodily injury.