A landlord will be covered for legal costs after his tenant’s dog escaped his property and mauled someone.

The policyholder sought a decision from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority on whether he was covered for defence expenses and indemnity for any judgment against him after the victim launched court action against four defendants.

Statement of claim allegations include that the dog had a documented history of attacks, the owner failed to muzzle it despite council directives, and it escaped from premises the landlord had not properly secured.

The insured held a landlord policy with Suncorp for a granny flat. It included a liability section covering an incident “at the insured address” that causes death or injury to others.

The insurer argues, for the purposes of the policy, the incident in question is the dog attack.

AFCA says the dog attack alone would not trigger liability against the landlord, because he did not own the animal and was not in control of it at the time.

“If the court finds the complainant liable to the third party, that would likely be due to the wrongful escape of the unmuzzled, violent dog at the insured address. This is clearly part of the third party’s claim against the complainant,” the decision says.

“It is important to emphasise that the policy does not require the injury itself to occur at the insured address. It merely requires there be an incident at the insured address which causes the injury.”

AFCA says it would not be fair to apply an overly restrictive interpretation of the insuring provision, and the complainant has a valid claim.

Legal proceedings were continuing when the landlord asked AFCA to decide if he was covered for costs.

The ombudsman stresses its decision concerns the policy response only, based on available information, because its role is not to determine the liability to the third party.

The decision is available here.