Property “In the Care of” the Insured

Q

Our HO 00 03 insured was “dog-sitting” for his neighbor. While our insured was walking the dog, it got away and ran into the street. It was hit by a car and suffered extensive injuries. The vet bill was over $10,000.

The owner of the dog is pursuing our insured for the vet charges. Our insured's homeowners carrier has offered to pay the voluntary property damage limit of $1,000. They have denied the rest of the claim, based on the dog's being “in the care of the insured.”

We don't believe the insurer is correct in its denial. The dog was not actually in the physical control of the insured when it was hit. Also, we have doubts about our insured's ultimate responsibility for the vet bills.

We would appreciate your thoughts.

Ohio Subscriber

A

Whether your insured is legally responsible for the vet bills incurred by the owner of the dog may be a matter for a court to decide.

However, in any event, there is no insurance coverage above the $1,000 already paid by the insurer. They were correct in denying the claim based on the “care, custody, or control” exclusion. Just because he didn't have physical control of the dog right at the moment it ran into the road, doesn't negate the fact that the dog was in his care at the time of the loss.

This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis