This scenario brought up some interesting insurance questions. Initially, would this accident be covered under a homeowners' policy, or an auto policy? The claim cannot be made under the injured woman's homeowners' policy, because the general homeowners' policy does not cover medical expenses for the insured. In most cases, an animal owner's homeowners insurance will provide coverage for liability arising from injuries caused by an animal owned by or in the care of the insured. Unfortunately for the injured woman in the case at hand, in order to recover under a homeowners' policy, the cat that caused the injury must be positively identified as a cat that is owned by the homeowner.  Unless the victim was familiar with the cat, identifying a specific cat is virtually impossible unless there was a reliable witness, or the cat was tagged. Although some carriers still maintain breed restrictions for the types of dogs they will insure, most carriers have no restrictions on the types of animals an insured may have. Some individuals get a thrill by owning dangerous and illegal exotic animals. One such case happened a few years ago in Zanesville, where an Ohio man kept a significant number of wild animals as pets.  He released the animals before committing suicide, sending the community into a panic. Again, identification of the offending animal is key. It's easier to identify the owner of a poisonous snake than the owner of typical house cat.  Many people own house cats; few attempt to domesticate rattlesnakes.

Since the felonious feline is likely not going to be identified, no claim can be made against the homeowners' policy, so we look to the auto policy of the victim.  The question is, is this an other than collision loss or a collision loss? Other than collision coverage includes “contact with a bird or animal”, and generally provides coverage for things beyond the insured's control such as hail, deer, and rising floodwaters.  Loss by collision with an animal is settled as a loss covered by other than collision coverage. It does not matter whether the animal falls on the car while in flight, runs into the car, or is run into by the car. In this situation the victim did not strike the animal with her vehicle, the animal leapt into the vehicle and attacked.  Since the animal attack caused the driver to abandon her car while it was still in gear, the losses to the insured's vehicle would be covered under the other than collision coverage. The attack by the cat was the proximate cause of the loss.

Part B – Medical Payments Coverage states that the insurer will pay “reasonable expenses incurred for necessary medical and funeral services because of “bodily injury” caused by an accident”. There is no doubt that the injuries the car owner sustained in this situation were caused by an accident. The next provision explains that “Insured” is you or any “family member” while “occupying” or as a pedestrian when struck by a motor vehicle designed for use mainly on public roads. Because the victim was hit by the car after she exited the car, she is considered a pedestrian. Her policy will pay for her medical expenses. Had she been struck by a different vehicle owned by a family member or other party, there would not have been coverage, because the policies covering those other vehicles should pay her medical expenses.  

The damage from the insured's vehicle rolling into the neighbor's vehicle is covered under the standard liability coverage. While the cat was actually at fault the insured lost control of her vehicle, putting the liability in her lap.

The victim's auto policy should cover her medical expenses, damages to her vehicle and damages to the other vehicle.  To the woman who suffered from this terrible kitten betrayal, we hope you have a swift recovery.