During the afternoon of August 19, 2015, Kathryn Baumann-Mader (Kit) was in her kitchen when she heard yelling and screaming outside. Kit ran out. She saw Sara Hanson (Sara) holding her thigh and heard her screaming, “He bit me!” Kit observed “Junior”, the 12-year-old son of a bulldog owner, holding the dog (Tank) down because Tank had slipped his leash. Kit ran to get a leash for Tank and then struggled with Tank to get the leash on him. Five police cars, a firetruck, and an ambulance responded. Tank was given to an officer. While the officer was taking Tank to the squad car, Tank resisted and eventually slipped out of his collar. The officer yelled, “Get in the house!” Tank knocked Kit to the ground and began biting her. Officers moved to tase Tank but tased Kit instead. Tank then lunged at an officer; police began shooting at Tank but ended up shooting Kit in the foot.
Kit required 29 staples in her thighs and crotch, surgically implanted hardware in her foot, and spent a week in the hospital. Kit and Sara sued Shawn Lievense and Annette Salazar (Lievense) Tank’s owners, who turned to their homeowners insurance provider, Integrity Mutual Insurance Company (Integrity) for coverage. Kit and Sara, the victims, alleged that six months prior to this attack, Tank had caused injury to a different person in an unprovoked attack. They produced a police report as evidence. Lievense had not reported this prior incident to Integrity.
When Integrity learned of the prior loss, it made a motion for summary judgment claiming it had no duty to defend or indemnify based on the following exclusion: “we do not cover” “bodily injury or property damage caused by ... any dog with a prior history of causing: (1) Bodily injury to a person,” which is “established through insurance claims records, or through the records of local public safety, law enforcement or other similar regulatory agency.”
The Circuit Court found the exclusion to be unambiguous and granted the summary judgment to Indemnity. Kit and Sara joined Lievense in an appeal.
They requested a reformation of the policy to allow coverage because they argued that the exclusion was against public policy. The appellate court noted that policy wording was not against public policy. After the earlier attack, Lievense had a choice to either remove Tank from the household or self-insure any future attacks.
The lower court’s ruling was affirmed.
Kathryn Baumann-Mader, David Mader, Sara J. Hanson And Cole S. Hanson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, United Healthcare Insurance Company, West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, Involuntary-Plaintiffs, V. Integrity Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant-Respondent, Shawn M. Lievense And Annette S. Salazar, Defendants-Appellants., No. 2017AP1369, 2018 WL 2247197 (Wis. Ct. App. May 16, 2018)
