Mr. Watson's vehicle was uninsured; Mr. Swanigan's vehicle was insured by Founders Insurance Company.

Mr. Swanigan sued Founders, seeking uninsured motorists (“UIM”) benefits.

The trial court denied Mr. Swanigan's motion for partial summary judgment and ruled in favor of Founders, finding that his damages had not arisen from a “use” of Mr. Watson's vehicle.

Mr. Swanigan appealed.

How did the Indiana appellate court rule?

The Answer

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that a vehicle was not in “use” for purposes of an automobile insurance policy's UIM endorsement where the auto allegedly was parked in a parking lot with its windows down and the owner's pit bull jumped out and attacked a person walking across the parking lot.

Learn more: Parked Car Was Not in “Use” When Pit Bull Allegedly Jumped Out Open Window and Attacked Person Walking Nearby, Indiana Appeals Court Finds

* * *

2. The Labrador Retriever/Boxer Bite

Melissa LaBarre, Sophia Bell's teacher, was at the Bells' residence to drop off a kitten. Ms. LaBarre brought her dog, Jeb, with her on the trip, because after leaving the Bells' Ms. LaBarre intended to drop Jeb off at her parents' home while she ran errands. Ms. LaBarre left Jeb, a 65-pound Labrador Retriever/Boxer mix, inside her vehicle parked in the Bells' driveway while she went into the Bells' residence. Ms. LaBarre was inside the Bells' residence between 15 to 45 minutes. At the completion of their visit, Ms. LaBarre, Sophia, and Sophia's mother, Theresa Bell, went out to the driveway. Jeb bit Sophia, and she experienced serious injuries to her face, requiring a number of reconstructive surgeries.

Ms. LaBarre sought coverage of the Bells' claims from her automobile insurance carrier, State Farm Insurance Company. State Farm brought a declaratory judgment action, and the parties moved for summary judgment.

How did the New Mexico federal district court rule?

The Answer

The New Mexico federal district court decided that the insurer was obligated to cover the claims, reasoning that the purpose of Ms. LaBarre's trip was to transport the dog and “the bite occurred because of the unique setting of the car” in that the dog ”was specifically territorial over the vehicle.”

Learn more: New Mexico Federal Court Finds Coverage for Dog Bite from Parked Car

* * *

3. One Pit Bull Terrier's Bite

Cindy Walden, an employee at a bar and grill in Gladstone, Missouri, said that she was walking to her place of employment when she saw Kenneth Smith's pick-up truck in the parking lot. Ms. Walden said that Mr. Smith was sitting in the parked vehicle and had two pit bull terriers in the cab of his truck. She asserted that she approached the truck and stood outside the driver's side door when one of Mr. Smith's dogs lunged through the open driver's side window and bit her on the upper lip. According to Ms. Walden, Mr. Smith did not have insurance but she had several automobile liability policies with American Family Mutual Insurance Company.

Ms. Walden sued Mr. Smith and American Family. She claimed that Mr. Smith was negligent in that he failed to warn Ms. Walden of the harm posed by the dangerous propensities of the dog, failed to restrain or otherwise prevent the dog from biting her, and failed to restrict or otherwise prevent people from coming into contact with the dog.

Ms. Walden also sought a declaratory judgment that she was entitled to coverage under the uninsured motorist (“UIM”) provision in her American Family policies. She alleged that Mr. Smith was an uninsured motorist and “was engaged in the operation and use of his motor vehicle, was in the process of transporting his dog, and failed to contain said dog,” resulting in her injuries.

The trial court granted American Family's motion for summary judgment, and Ms. Walden appealed.

How did the Missouri appellate court rule?

The Answer

The Missouri appellate court ruled that Ms. Walden was not entitled to UIM benefits from her own insurance carrier because the alleged incident did not “arise out of the use” of an uninsured vehicle.

It reasoned that Mr. Smith's vehicle was merely the “situs” of Ms. Walden's injuries, explaining that “the uncontroverted facts do not establish that [Mr.] Smith's use of his vehicle to transport his dogs created a condition that caused the dog to bite [Ms.] Walden.”

Learn more: Dog Bite from Uninsured Parked Vehicle Did Not “Arise Out of” Its Use, Appeals Court Rules

* * *

4. Another Dog Bite and Insurance Coverage Fight

In December 2012, a New York trial court ruled in favor of underinsured motorist coverage where a dog in a parked car bit a woman walking by. The insurer appealed.

How did the appellate court rule?

The Answer

The appellate court reversed.

In this case, the appellate court found, the woman's injuries had not resulted from the inherent nature of the dog owner's vehicle, and the vehicle itself had not produced the injuries. Rather, the appellate court ruled, the injuries had been caused by the dog, “and the vehicle merely contributed to the condition which produced the injury, namely, the location or situs for the injury.”

Finding no causal relationship between the car and the dog bite, the appellate court concluded, coverage was lacking.

Learn more: Dog (in Parked Car) Bites Woman (Walking By): No UIM Coverage, Appeals Court Holds in Reversal of Trial Court

* * *

5. Four Dogs (OK, Not a Bite, but a Parked Car Was Involved)

After Ramon Rebeles parked on a road, four dogs allegedly bolted out of his vehicle and Patricia Gradek allegedly was injured when her bicycle collided with one of the dogs on a nearby bicycle path. The Rebeleses' insurance carrier, IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company, filed an action alleging that the incident did not trigger insurance coverage because it did not result from a “use” of the Rebeleses' motor vehicle. The Gradeks claimed that the incident arose out of the unintentional unloading of the dogs, which constituted a use of the motor vehicle.

After a trial, the court found that the dogs “had completed the process of unloading” from the Rebeleses' vehicle when the incident allegedly had occurred. Therefore, the trial court concluded that Ms. Gradek's injury had not resulted from a “use” of the motor vehicle, and it entered judgment in favor of IDS.

The Gradeks appealed.

How did the California appellate court rule?

The Answer

The appellate court found no coverage.

It ruled that the use of the Rebeleses' vehicle to transport their dogs to a place near the site of the incident did “not establish the requisite level of causation to trigger coverage.” In the appellate court's opinion, Ms. Gradek's injury simply “did not result from the unloading of the dogs,” given the trial court's finding that the dogs “had completed the process of unloading” from the vehicle when the incident allegedly had occurred.

Learn more: When Dogs and Cars Don't Mix: No “Use” Found Where Woman Collided with Dog 20 Feet Away from Car in which It Had Been Riding