AM muddied the water here in only a manner that he's capable of!
Negligence is well, negligence -- and a fall on your property causing injury to a party is a claimable event-- but to what degree is another question the insurer would want to investigate.
It's also well-known in the industry that a negligence claim due to an accident caused by the policyholder's pet is generally a
slam dunk (i.e., no lengthy investigation and quick settlement).
That said, I believe it was AM that initially provided that when attending to GS, she told him the dog(s) caused her to fall, and although AM now alleges he lied in his claim that his dogs caused the accident, I've not heard AM say that 1) he lied about GS telling him the dogs caused the accident; or 2) The dogs were present and GS told him it was the dogs and AM's lying today, or 3) GS told AM the dogs caused her to fall but he didn't believe her (the dogs were still kenneled), or 4) GS told AM she was hit and knocked to the ground, or 5) GS said nothing and didn't remember anything.
As I said, AM muddied the waters!
On the other hand, I understood that GS told staff at the hospital she had no memory of how she ended up on the ground.
IMO, I don't think we will ever know the truth here. I think GS loved and trusted AM and would say whatever he asked her to say including saying nothing at all.
The bottom line is that Nautilus Insurance is either going to attempt to claw back any payment or pledge to pay while conducting an investigation according to the standard industry practice when no Murdaugh is involved.
As part of the investigation, I believe Nautilus will also seek GS's medical and hospital records -- which sounds to me is something that EB doesn't want to happen and therefore sticking firm to a dog caused GS's accident.
And shame on AM for putting the Satterfields in this position.
MOO