A British Columbia court has found an auto insurer partly liable for a dog bite in a case in which a dog tied up in the back of a truck reached out to bite.

Richard Maris was sued for damages after his dog, Rebel, bit Tina Taylor. Taylor and Maris left a pub together and when Taylor approached Rebel, who was tied in the back of Maris’ pick-up truck, she was bitten by the dog. That suit was settled, but then Maris’ two insurers fought over who would have to pay the settlement.

The issue is whether Taylor’s claim arose out of the use of Maris’ vehicle, or was the truck merely the incidental location of the event. The Supreme Court chambers judge found that the bite was not related to the truck. He ordered that the defendant’s general liability insurer, Canadian Northern Shield Insurance Co., and not his automobile insurer, Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, had the duty to defend the claim.

On appeal, the court found that the liability should be shared with the auto insurer because there was some connection between the use of the truck (for transporting a dog) and the bite.

“The allegation is not simply that the dog was in the truck when the bite occurred; it is that the dog was not contained in the truck, which, it is alleged, led to the bite occurring. This is an allegation that raises a causal connection between the injury and the use of the truck to transport Rebel. Thus this pleaded claim could possibly trigger indemnity under the ICBC policy, triggering the duty of ICBC to defend this claim.”

“ I would allow the appeal and order that ICBC and CNS are both obligated to defend the defendant in this action,” the court found.