Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu
  • roro80

    Hmmm…I’m fairly certain if my dog hurts your dog, and it’s determined to be the fault of my dog, I have to pay to have your dog’s medical bills. My guess is that this woman could sue the driver for the remainder of the bills, but I’m not sure…

  • DLS

    The creepier part is what might it be like if health insurers chose to “total” people with terrible, and terribly expensive, injuries, or if the insured person were diagnosed with a serious (probably chronic and also expensive) illness. Would such people be someday “totaled,” too?

    (I’m still anticipating the effective end of health insurance as soon as medical genetics advances just a bit more, just a little bit more…)

  • PATRICK EDABURN, Assistant Editor

    I am quite sure she could sue the woman for the medical bills.

    In addition the insurance would likely have to cover some of the costs there.

  • Allen

    See, now this a prime example of uncontrolled business. We will “total” your dog. Meaning we won’t pay anymore if your dogs needs further treatment.

    Well, you WILL if I sue the crap out you, but there ya go, only those whom can afford to sue gets made whole again after a loss. Everybody else is screwed because there is no law that tells the insurance cartel, on behalf of the public, that you WILL operate ethically and THESE are the guidelines you WILL follow.

    When was the last time you dealt with an auto insurance claim? You are supposed to be made whole after a loss, less an already agreed upon deductible. You shouldn’t pay anything more than what it costs to repair your car, not one damn cent. But no….you have to negotiate for something less than what they advertise they will pay. Crooks! Without a doubt, “insurance”, is one of the most egregious forms Institutionalized corruption free enterprise has ever produced.

  • casualobserver

    Yes, she could sue if the drIver was “at fault”, but it doesn’t say.

    Regardless of that, if the woman doesn’t want her dog’s care limited to replacement cost calculations, she was an idiot to file a claim.

    She probably also goes to see a doctor when she has a cold and wants insurance to pay for it……and maintains a no or low deductible.

    I’m rooting for the insurance company on this one.

    P.s. I’m glad the insurance companies have screwed Allen. Saves me of having to find a way.

  • EEllis

    “Well, you WILL if I sue the crap out you, but there ya go, only those whom can afford to sue gets made whole again after a loss. Everybody else is screwed because there is no law that tells the insurance cartel, on behalf of the public, that you WILL operate ethically and THESE are the guidelines you WILL follow”

    Umm no they wouldn’t because you would lose. This dog is and should be considered property. There is a upper limit to that value and that’s all anyone has to pay. There are laws and agencies that do regulate insurance agencies already by the way. As much as I loved my dog it just isn’t acceptable to charge someone 10 grand if he gets accidentally hurt. The agent needs a boot to the head for the stupid remark tho. Saying that there is a total amount available is different from totaling out a animal and so much less hurtful.

  • roro80

    “I’m rooting for the insurance company on this one.”

    I’m not exactly shocked that you would be rooting for the insurance company, casual. Sounds about right, considering.

  • Allen

    EElie-

    You are kind of a dummy huh? Of course its property, but I know of dogs worth tens of thousands of dollars.

    Insurance covers loss. Period. If the loss is max the liability so be it. If not, you get it ALL.

  • EEllis

    You are kind of a dummy huh? Of course its property, but I know of dogs worth tens of thousands of dollars.

    Insurance covers loss. Period. If the loss is max the liability so be it. If not, you get it ALL.

    First with the insult which was unnecessary and violates policy here.

    Second a person would only be liable for damages up to the reasonable value of the dog. While a pet is hard to put a value on this is somethings courts have had to do and I’m sure the insurance companies have more than a bit of research on those values. You may know someone who has a $10,000 dog (yeah right), and in that case the person would be liable for the full value, but the reality is the normal value of a pet is about much more than cost and I bet the courts and insurance both recognize that. Most dogs cost $500 or less so when an insurance company pays 1 or 2 thousand, and god knows the bills add up quick, that is recognizing the importance of more than money. We shouldn’t however expect it to be unlimited.

  • Allen

    EEll-

    You are incorrect. The value of the dog could easily be $10,000. A show dog, breedable.

    Liability insurance will pay, or, be forced to pay by civil suit, the entire verifiable value of the dog.

    Not “Reasonable Amount” Maybe for your backyard mut, but not a show dog or rare breed.

  • EEllis

    Great and how many people own these “show dogs” and what in the heck makes you think this is one? Yes my dog was a “mutt” but if you think that I would care less when he died because he was a mutt or would of loved him more if he were a show dog then you are wrong. I have stated that if the dog were worth 10,000 grand then the person would be liable for the full value. The more complex issue is what to do when it’s just a household pet worth $500 at best. What then should the liability be?

  • CStanley

    EEllis is right- if this particular dog had been a valuable show breed then the value of ‘totalling’ him would have been much higher too (much like it would cost an insurance company a lot more to ‘total’ a new Porsche than an old Chevy.)

    Also correct that the driver might still be on the hook (if at fault) for more $ even if the insurance company capped the payout to the monetary value of the pet. And the civil claims for damages (whether the vet bills or emotional damages) vary a lot by state and are changing over time. In the past, pets were strictly property whereas now more and more they’re recognized as companions.)

  • DLS

    Note that if the dog had been a valuable show breed, it likely would have had special insurance for such dogs.

  • Allen

    EE-

    Irrelevant.

  • Allen

    DLS-

    Why are you always lost?

    Sombody else damaged the dog. Its THEIR liability, not the dog owner.

    Good Grief.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com