He declined coverage of accidents for which he was responsible and no-fault accidents. He's arguing that the dog-owners were responsible for this accident, in which case his insurance status is irrelevant.
“...in which case his insurance status is irrelevant.”
______________________________________________________________
But morally it is.
How can he assume the risk for C/C and pocket the savings and when C/C is needed he wants to sue for the damage. It was a discretionary decision that saved him money and he now wants to in effect sue homeowner policy holders to make him whole when he tacitly agreed to self-insure by declining the C/C. The moral position would be to accrue the savings from declining the C/C coverage and bet that you will come out ahead. That’s exactly what insurance companies do.