Metnik v. American Family

1. American Family Mutual Insurance Company appeals an order denying its motion for a declaration that it did not provide liability coverage to its insured, Steven Wirtz, for injuries sustained by Lukas Metnik while attending day care at Wirtz's home. American Family argues that the circuit court erred by concluding that Metnik's claim falls within the "non-business exception" to the "business pursuits exclusion" of Wirtz's homeowners' insurance policy. We reject American Family's argument and affirm the order.

Background

2. In 1996, Wirtz's wife began operating a day care center out of their home. In September of 1999, Metnik, who was attending the day care center, was injured after being bitten by Wirtz's dog. Metnik brought suit against Wirtz and his homeowners' liability insurer, American Family, to recover damages for the injuries suffered. Metnik's complaint alleged strict liability and negligence on the part of Wirtz and also alleged that American Family's insurance policy provided coverage to Wirtz as the owner of the dog that caused Metnik's injuries.

3. American Family filed a motion for declaratory judgment disputing insurance coverage under the policy. The circuit court denied the motion and this court granted American Family's petition for leave to appeal.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

¶8. Applying Vandenberg to the present case, where the language of the "non-business exception" is ambiguous, we construe the policy in favor of the insured. Because Wirtz reasonably could have believed that he had coverage under the "non-business exception" to the "business pursuits exclusion" for the supervision and control of his dog, we conclude that the insurance policy provides coverage to Wirtz for the claim that he was negligent in the supervision and control of that dog.

By the Court. Order affirmed for the Plaintiff.

Unavailable

Unavailable

C.L.