all right our third case for this morning is american family mutual insurance company against williams kinds of people legally responsible for and it makes owners responsible for them and it makes keepers responsible for them and it defines those terms and i'm having trouble seeing how mr williams is either one of them or you are first of all i disagree with that statement and you know it is not defined personally responsible an animal as solely being an owner or keeper but even if you take those terms into the other honor they found that she was the light of today's parents but they found that she was responsible for because she was in control the animal at that particular day the same as in the hearts or case she would the child was in charge in control of the dog on that particular day even though they were the particular owner of the doll to be requesting control put it in there all sorts of ways you can be in custody or control and it's hard for me to imagine why anybody would want to buy your homeowner's insurance policy if guests with very little relationship to the animal in question in this case emmett the dog don't have liability protection for activities on the premises that are unsure it's not like he decided to take the dog off to the park downtown or something that i imagine would not be under the auspices of your policy but it's it's a very odd way of understanding the policy anybody who's in the house has any interaction at all with the dog in your view is an insured under this policy  of bread and they and someone else says hold this leash for a minute i'm about to go out and they do boom they're insured under your view and then they also under indiana law which takes a broad view of what insurance are in the coverage would be whining you arguing this your client of course doesn't want to have to defend her pay in this case but the implications as you just stated of your argument is that the number of people you're insuring when you write a policy of homeowner's insurance goes vastly beyond the purchasers of the insurance a include every incidental visitor to the house no matter what and it i don't think you can confine it to the dog language of the policy it's a good it's a strange position for an insurance company to want to take since they usually want to insure known quantit honor but you think everybody on the one who might walk into the van to ventures home is somebody that you're ensuring if they happen to hold a dog's leash if they happen to turn the microwave that they're not on if they happen to going that would apply actually i think off the premises as well if he's if he's was he if he walks i can i would have thought that you at least your duty to defend under your theory extends quite broadly so that even if the  is not finally deemed a keeper by the indiana supreme court and how few cases get to that resolution you still owe a duty of defense to somebody who takes control of the dog takes it for a walk in it then injures somebody and that person get sued along with the owner's right that that's what you're telling us all right my problem is with this your reliance on this in trying surety exclusion that the purpose of that is essentially to prevent collusive claims right correct judge yeah so for example the guest who comes to visit and slips on a loose carpet on the stairs and gets hurt is not treated as an insured rather that person can make a claim and your insurance would cover the owners claim right ok now suppose somebody who's a regular dog walker for this family a neighborhood teenager comes to the house and that person slips on that same loose carpet on the stairs is he an insured because he's legally responsible for the dog that has nothing to do with this incident i think if he was walking the dogs out when that happened he would be in shock isn't that he's not he's not so i guess so the dog walker would not be deemed an insured for purposes of exclusion eleven unless it's a claim arising from the dog hundred your theory how do you get that limitation  that they unless he's holding the dog then he's there taking the dog and who knows what the dog did to make them fall but or the carpet or whatever but once he's taking possession that dog he is an issue is similar to if you give your keys to somebody and you said you have permission drive my car they become ensure that point and then if something happens then they could become in there be lively coverage of what happens how does the driving of the car though i mean i think the hypothetical here is that the teenagers walked into the house the dog is sitting there in the kitchen you know having a drink of water or something and he slips on the carpet now the purpose of being in the house might be to go take the dog for a walk in a minute but he's not doing that and you're reading a lot into it's this interim sure exclusion to have all of these distinctions there i don't believe so judge because first of all back to the to the out of the reference we made or i was just going to say the problem with your reading is insured mean yes i'm uncomfortable with the on again off again notion of the definition because the policy says insured means any person dot dot legally responsible dot dot for an animal owned by any person and it seems to me that you think only one factor may sound body legally responsible namely holding the leash as i read the relevant indiana cases legally responsible is kind of in all the facts and circumstances sort of thing that requires a number of him to share of responsibility and i don't know how the teenager when he walks in the door of the watercraft rent and my question is legally responsible for what i can think for complying with applicable law ordinances for getting registrations and licenses inoculations for veterinary care for food and water or anything else i would think those are all potential meanings but the but what it really is aimed at you is liable for injuries caused by the dog right that's what or to the dog itself by or to the dog itself that's what it's aimed at does this is after all liability insurance rent and so i'm having trouble how most trouble seeing how mr williams would be legally responsible for any injury the dog caused to himself right your whole case is built on other hypotheticals about what happens if the he's walking the dog and it bites some neighbor's child right but let's focus on this how is he legally responsible for this injury to himself on this particular case mr williams was that the dog by a leash out in an fenced area of the yard near a road he was already aware that prior dog had been killed hurts his shelter badly because i was about to say he was responsible for that dog that i got away and got hurt and if you wrote it but not for what actually happened but he's not responsible for what actually happened that he's not legally responsible for that dog at that point even under the statutes and ordinances applied he had to do to restrain that dog which is what he was doing but with each speaking speaking of ordinances do you think we can take judicial notice that the vendor ventures lived outside the bloomington city limits i don't know that you can because there's never been any evidence presented in the record shows that they are not in the in that moment or just a question is can we take judicial notice i want to yesterday my address is bloomington where i live where outside the city limits come  mean asking that because the scientists i read this policy it protects people who are domestic employees who are injured on the premises and on the job right there is a different precision provision but i'm concerned that because domestic employees are also treated under the definition of insurers and as insurance any person while working as a domestic employee of any person who didn't care if they that that would also he would also basically take away that coverage by your reading your very broad reading of the intra insured exclusion if they were to sue the named insured right is that right correct ok that's right and then explain to me i'm looking at the exclusions in the policy that says we will not cover bodily injury to any employee other than a domestic employee of any insured arising out of an in the course of their employment maney insured and we have this exclusion for bodily or injury occurring elsewhere off the insurer premises this does not apply to to any domestic employer arising out of an in the course of employment by any insured which sure seems to me imply the domestic employees are covered and yet you're now telling us that despite all those implications the intra insured provision would take all thank you for your honour's may please the court i think the district court correctly determined that mr williams was not legally responsible for the dogs at the very reasons that you discussed here questions indiana looks to owners and keepers as the people legally responsible for dogs are supposed to look let's suppose ms birdlet did mr williams who take a mad dog for a walk on the leash and it bites the neighbor's child and the neighbors are upset and whether they've got a good claim or not they sue your clients and mr williams in that case if all the facts are the same mr williams would not be insured under this policy he might be seen sure he would he said your are you saying he wouldn't be entitled to coverage under this policy when somebody is it would lease to a duty to defend of some of these trying to hold him legally responsible for the start i do not believe that he would be i think that the courts would still look to you as you legally responsible for that is shocking to me i think it has to be interpreted the same way whether it's mr williams making the claim or whether it's a nonparty making that why do you think that that is the argument you're making is terrible for homeowners and guests it's poller that it may not be very good in that sit interpretation should be asymmetrical in order to protect liability to protect both your clients and mr williams from liability in the kind of hypotheticals that the insurance company has argued and yet not to hold mr williams legally responsible for his own injuries in what actually happened i think we have your committed to symmetrical interpretation of this some pretty clear occur i don't disagree with that but i think we have to look at how the policy is written and the policy is written that someone that is if they're legally responsible for the job they become insured so the question is what does this legally responsible term mean that was a question that was raised earlier what in your view does that mean and do you think it's clear or do you think it's ambiguous enough that it duty to defend at least arises even if ultimately there may or may not be a duty to  y i think indiana law is very clear that it's owners and keepers that are responsible and a keeper is someone who basically fills in as an owner would it's not somebody that grabs a hold of a leash for a moment and suddenly they're a keeper suddenly they're legally responsible for the dog so you're relying on rosser more than ross for that i'm relying on more than bras even the cases where the courts have found someone other than the owner responsible they look to the degree of contacts that that person had with the dog for example and better than and had routinely been feeding the dog routinely been watering the dog and had been inducing the dog to come to his property it wasn't a one off event and i think that's what indiana courts look to that's also what other jurisdictions that follow the similar framework look to and yes that may lead to unfortunate results under the policy but that doesn't mean that mr lane just suddenly insured because he decided i'm going to take the got hurt wouldn't you expect the american family to cover a suit by that person against the end for coverage when the domestic employee slips on the floor and breaks her hip or something like that that's the the core of the liability provisions in these policies so how important is it i mean you know you can go the way american family insurance is going and say the minute you hold the leash even for a period of five seconds you become legally responsible for the dog at least during that five seconds so so what else is important i know you stressed the facts that the vanda vendors didn't actually even care if if mr williams took the dog out said put it on the the fixed lead instead of the chain take our car you want to leave the dog alone how important are those other factors if he in fact undertakes to take the dog for a walk i think those factors are important i think it's also important this is a one time event but if you stay with them for a month you know he's from the u k in south africa maybe once a nice long stay in the same town and love and areas around it everyone is invited to  just trying to be a nice gaston carry his part of the load you know what rational way of drawing out line is there i think that there would have to be more than that there would have to be an understanding that mr williams is going to be filling in a sensually as the owner of the dog while the band even hers are gone so well they are gone he's expected to provide all of the care that an owner will good not just well i felt like taking the dog for a walk so i grabbed the leash and off we went and i think one of the reasons that indiana looks at these continuous ongoing care is because you're not going to know the dogs propensity is if you just occasionally every once in a while or one time have pos of the dog a dog is not a car a dog is not a house a dog has personality and propensities so you think the getting to know the dog is good so you wouldn't want to rethink only responsible is the one who has to go get the rabies shot in the one who has to i presume monroe county must have some you know register your dog thing you know where you get a tag for the dog places do i mean that would be one actually very easy way to draw a line between who is legally responsible and who isn't  perhaps but either inclusive it's a line that has nothing to do with the purpose of the insurance or the problem right which is why ability for the change so i guess i'm let me try one more time  soul there obviously is lots of room under the case law to debate exactly how much contact one must have had with the dog to be held legally responsible for it but your clients presumably want to be cover themselves from potential liabilities and want their guests to be covered as well right and so that's why i  don't understand your reluctance to agree that even if the claim is not well founded against mr williams because he's not really a keeper if somebody is trying to hold him legally responsible in the hypothetical where the dog has injured someone else while he's holding the leash why he's not at least entitle to a defense along with your clients in such a case i will say he he may be entitled to a defense in that case and then if he loses then he has been held legally responsible right and he's indemnified yes right now yes however even however the case ultimately gets resolved with my settlement  me and i do think your honor makes a good point that it he would be entitled to a defense because for the due to defend we don't look to all of the factors that we look to change in the vacation we look to that complaint and a reasonable investigation and if there is some set of facts that leads to there should be the should be covered under the insurance policy that he would be entitled to a duty to defend and i think this case also would be very difficult to determine that there wasn't a duty to defend in most cases involving a dog as a matter of history yes so what about the problem that the interim sure supervision is focusing it which is the idea of collusive lawsuits here mr williams he's their guest he's in the backyard and does something unexpected and he's hurt so now he's suing his buddy you know his college roommate the in trying to sure prohibition is saying well wait a minute we don't have confidence that that's going to be a valid kind of claim so why wouldn't apply airboat they're both insured we've agreed that he's entitled to a defense under the policy they're entitled to fence a policy they're both insured under that scenario and so why do they get to sue each other and i think there may be an answer to this but i'm interested know what your answer is if your honor is asking about these particular facts why did they get to sue each other yeah i think you still have your go through the definition of insured and i do think there are some instances where that insurer definition is obviously go impulsive labrador if you go through that analysis of whether or not he's an insured which i think you do have to do in any case and determine does he have enough contacts with this dog to be held legally misses and nephews and those kinds of folks who are visitors to the house who get hurt because of the dangerous condition or cover correct there is some danger of collusion but it's not quite as the same as between household members correct right and the insurance company retains the right to control the defense yes they do under the cells there could be an effort to collusion but in all those situations judge hamilton mentions presumably the right to control the defense is pretty big protection year under seventy other questions i don't believe i have anything else right thank you very much anything further mr di i think your time may have expired i'll give you a minute all right thank you thanks to both counsel will take