Insurance what you don't know

Concluding, inter alia, that knowledge was not a prerequisite of the actual language of the insurance policy contract, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting the defendant-insurer summary disposition in this dispute as to coverage under a homeowner's insurance policy. The plaintiff-insured purchased homeowner's insurance from defendant for a rental property. He leased the property and later discovered that his tenants had moved out but continued to use the home to house at least 18 animals, primarily dogs. "The animals had urinated and defecated throughout the home, resulting in considerable damage." Plaintiff filed a property loss notice with defendant seeking coverage under the policy. Defendant sent him correspondence indicating that his policy precluded coverage based on an animal exclusion provision. Plaintiff sued. The trial court ruled for defendant based on the exclusionary policy language relating to animals. The policy provided that it did "not cover loss resulting directly or indirectly from . . . wear and tear, marring, scratching or deterioration . . . animals owned or kept by an insured or tenant[.]" Plaintiff argued on appeal, inter alia, that the animal exclusion provision required a landlord have actual knowledge that a tenant was retaining animals on the property. He contended that he was unaware the tenants kept animals at the house, contrary to their lease, and that the exclusion was unenforceable. The court concluded that while plaintiff argued that the term "kept" necessarily implies knowledge, this interpretation was "strained. While a definition of ‘kept' implies possession, it does not necessarily infer knowledge as the language of the exclusion encompasses ‘animals owned or kept by any insured or tenant.'" Plaintiff also argued that the exclusion did not apply because the property damage was attributable to the tenants' failure "to clean up the animal urine and feces over an extended period of time rather than the actual voiding by the animals in the residence." However, the court held that this argument was "insupportable based on the language of the exclusion," which precluded a claim for loss resulting "directly or indirectly" from "animals owned or kept by any insured or tenant."