NOTE – This is from our older court case archives. It may involve situations that are inapplicable to newer coverage forms. Please be aware of this possibility when reading and using this case.

Shooting Of Dog Under Stress Was Not Covered

Homeowner Insurance	Intentional Act
Punitive Damage

The appeal court in this case affirmed that an insurer was not obligated, under the Liability insurance provided under its Homeowners policy, to pay for an amount of judgment rendered against its insured or to defend him in connection with the insured’s shooting of a dog that he thought was going to attack him.

The insured was walking through wooded property in the country that had been in his family for generations. He was spending the weekend there with his wife and sons and had taken his gun with him to hunt rabbits. He said that the unknown dog had been running toward him, that he did not recognize it as a hunting dog and shot it in fear, having previously been bitten by a rabid dog. The dog owner and two companions claimed that the insured was threatening toward them when they came into sight. (They were walking through the insured’s property.)

The dog owner secured a judgment of $775.00 against the insured, who incurred expenses of $2,685 for defense when the insurer denied liability. The insured sought $15,000 in a lawsuit against the insurer for compensatory and punitive damages.

The insurance company based its denial on the exclusion of bodily injury or property damage caused intentionally. The court found it clear that the insured committed an intentional act intended to cause injury. It expressed sympathy for his plight but noted that a jury had found against him. It ruled that the policy did not cover the claim and that the insured was not entitled to damages from the insurer.

Treaner Et Al., Plaintiffs, Appellants V. General Accident Fire And Life Assurance Corporation, Limited, Defendant, Appellee. Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section at Nashville. Filed 10-26-79. CCH Fire and Casualty Cases 861.