add STATE FARM to the list of insurance companies I'll never use

ohskigod

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ce790ff71ff6bbbca9e18d3940bfe8d9.531&show_article=1


long and short of it. someone runs over you're dog, you're dog dies. you fight the urge to strangle the driver because hey man, you know it was an accident. Then State Farn sends YOU a bill ot repair the bumper of the guy that ran over YOUR dog.

dude, thats balls

nooshinjohn

Only to play devils advocate, but why was the dog on the loose in the first place? In every incident I have come across, it is the animal's owner that must accept responsibility for not controlling his pet. Most places have laws on the books about animals running free or unleashed. Proper control of the animal could have prevented this, and based upon the article, the owner was in violation of the law for letting the dog roam free.

I am not saying it's right.... but I see the other side of it.

ryanjoachim

It's liability unfortunately. According to laws in most places, if the dog is not on a leash, it's your fault if something happens involving the dog.

This is an extreme instance, but unfortunately it's usually the same for all insurance companies.

polktiger

Too much info left out of this story. Family should not have been letting dog roam free. Fence in the back yard if you don't want to have your dog on a tether all the time.

As far as the driver...was he speeding, not paying attention, what events transpired that resulting in hitting the dog. Yes the family is technically liabile, but we have no way of knowing if the driver was negligent (which again is legally moot.) Sort of like the idiot that slams on their brakes at the last minute to turn left without signaling and you run into the back of him. Yes you are technically at fault, but the idiot (likely trying to cause an accident to they can get whiplash) actually caused the accident.

cfrizz

I'm sorry Lou, but the insurance company is correct. The owners are responsible for supervising their pets. If you don't have a fenced in yard, then you get off your lazy butt, put the dog on a leash & take him out for a walk. You DON'T just open a door, where they can run into the street, get attacked by another dog, etc & you are not there to stop him!

The womans careless attitude/behavior has cost her the life of her dog & money simply because SHE didn't use common sense!

exalted512

I actually work for state farm and I brought this story up to my agent who also worked in claims for almost 10 years.

He said that this kind of stuff probably wouldn't fly in the states ( notice it happened in Canada). But it also could be that the driver of the vehicle is pissed that they had to pay their deductible because of someone else's dog and has state farm taking care of that on their behalf.
-Cody

inspiredsports

polktiger wrote: »

. . . the driver . . . was he speeding, not paying attention, what events transpired that resulting in hitting the dog . . . we have no way of knowing if the driver was negligent . . .

I lost a cousin in a car crash several years ago. His wife, who survived the crash, said Tim swerved to avoid a dog that darted onto the road and they ended up upside down in a ravine.

I love animals, but I love my family more. I've have instructed my wife and 4 young driving children to square up, stay absolutely centered in their lane and hit any non-human animal that strays onto the pavement.

jflail2

If they loved their dog THAT much they wouldn't have let it run freely near/in the road. Insurance payout or not, these people were negligent with their animal. I feel bad for the dog moreso than anyone else here. Too bad his owners didn't care about him enough to keep him out of the road to begin with....

dkg999

Believe me that in the US if a farm animal gets loose (ie cow, pig, horse, sheep, goat, etc) and someone hits it you will be liable. I'm not sure if that extends to pets vs a production animal.

McLoki

As someone who owns large dogs - I HATE IT when people just open their door and let their dogs roam free. I am on the side of the road and I have to let their yorkie chew on my great dane because they couldn't get off their lazy butts and put a leash on their dog.

I am certainly sorry the dog was hit - but the fault lies with them, not State Farm.

If they left their car in Neutral and it rolled into the road and hit another car - who would be liable?

If a dog owner opens their door and lets their dog out and your child happens to be walking on the other side of the street - and the dog runs over (out of its yard) and bites your child requiring stitches - who is at fault?

If you are driving down a street and notice a dog running around in the front yard of a house - you think - they must have one of those invisible fences - By the time you realise they don't, the dog is in front of you (in the street) and causes over $1,500 damage to your car as you hit it. Are you liable for that or is the dog owner (just like the car owner would have been in the first senario). Sorry their dog died, but it ain't right that I have to pay $1,500 out of my own pocket because the dog owner to to darn lazy to take proper care of / responsibility for their dog.

Michael

Kex

I have to say that I agree with Michael ^^^^. We have a dog, and sometimes it's not on it's leash in the front yard. If it did get hit by a car (which it won't, because it's very well trained, among other things, but if it did), I would totally blame myself, not the driver, for not being more careful about it. I would also feel liable for any broken lights on the driver's vehicle. Why should he pay, after all?

If the driver was speeding, then maybe it would be 50/50, but I still bet the Sheriff would quietly let us know that if we got another dog, it needs to be on it's leash, or fenced in ... and, unless the skid marks were enough to prove excessive speed, I still expect the insurance company would blame us for the damage.

Too many people are responsible for their own problems in life, and yet they still want somebody else to pay for those self inflicted problems. That's what I disagree with. It's sad that in this case, the dog, far more than the owner, had to pay the price.

hoosier21

20 years ago I hit a dog, pulled over to change my tire, saw the sliced tire and damage to my car, add to that 100 degree day, I was pissed by the time my tire was changed. Turned the car around towards the direction I last saw the bleedy dog headed, turned down the next street, found a 9 year old kid in the front yard, asked if he had a dog, tears in his eyes he barely got out "yea but my Daddy took him in the woods to shoot him" I asked if it was because he was hit by a car, "YES", I waited there to collect my insurance deductable.

ohskigod

so, let's ammend the argument, but substitute the word Dog for Kid.

hey, parents should control there kids right


I'm not saying the driver is at fault or should go to jail, but if i hit a kid, even if the kid ran out and I had no chance of avoiding him and that was vouched by a court, I wouldnt be asking the parents to reimburse my bumper costs.

in regards to the argument of swerving for animals causing injury, I agree. I'll swerve and risk my life for a kid, but not a dog as much as I love them. If I cant bring the car to a stop or maneuver the car in a way I know is safe, that dog is grill meat.

still don't feel right asking to be reinbursed for damage. it just don't. agree to disagree I guess

nooshinjohn

You cannot substitute the life of an animal for a human being, as they are not the same thing.

ohskigod

nooshinjohn wrote: »

You cannot substitute the life of an animal for a human being, as they are not the same thing.

in a big picture standpoint of course you are correct. Never said otherwise, but the isolated issue of the repair to the bumper? I don't see much of a difference



though if someone jumped off a balcony committing suicide and landed on my car, I would sue the pants off the family.....of course I have a dim and jaded view of suicide so thats just me


meh, maybe i'm wrong

Echosphere

exalted512 wrote: »

I actually work for state farm and I brought this story up to my agent who also worked in claims for almost 10 years.

He said that this kind of stuff probably wouldn't fly in the states ( notice it happened in Canada). But it also could be that the driver of the vehicle is pissed that they had to pay their deductible because of someone else's dog and has state farm taking care of that on their behalf.
-Cody

I think Cody has a point.

especially in regards to Canada.

It is not only another state, but also another country. Possibly it could "fly" here, in some states...

But that's Canada and from what I've noticed personal responsibility in other countries is much higher than the US for dogs. We tend to take or let dogs have their way as part of our freedoms.

And thats not a bad thing. From what I have gather dogs and pets in the US cause no more "damage" per capita than other developed countries.

We just tend to extend our freedoms to our pets. Whereas other countries tend to treat them as property with a direct relation to our personal responsibility as such.

I understand where the original poster got frustrated. But I tend to think that has more to do with insurance companies and $$$, anywhere, than with a personal loved pet.

Btw. I know you love pets. I love my cat and if she got hit I don't know what I would do in such a situation. But PLEASE don't relate them to kids. Currently, I don't have children and given the circumstance I would be as irate as that animal owner in the article. But once I had kids I think I might change my stance. Kids are not pets. Perchance, do you have children? Not judging, just curious. Again, love my cat very much, she's the world to me.

Echosphere

ohskigod wrote: »

so, let's ammend the argument, but substitute the word Dog for Kid.

hey, parents should control there kids right


I'm not saying the driver is at fault or should go to jail, but if i hit a kid, even if the kid ran out and I had no chance of avoiding him and that was vouched by a court, I wouldnt be asking the parents to reimburse my bumper costs.

in regards to the argument of swerving for animals causing injury, I agree. I'll swerve and risk my life for a kid, but not a dog as much as I love them. If I cant bring the car to a stop or maneuver the car in a way I know is safe, that dog is grill meat.

still don't feel right asking to be reinbursed for damage. it just don't. agree to disagree I guess

Let me adjust my stance and say you are wrong, and a bit of an idiot.

In America, even if we give them our freedoms they are our responsibility. Personal liability. If that dog gets loose runs out into traffic and damages a car. YOU have to pay. Bumpers and engine mounts don't grow on trees. THEY COST MONEY. Someone has to pay. Someone ALWAYS has to pay in our market economy. So, that would be the dog owner. If the owner was negligent, then the they have to pay.

The person who hit the dog would say "I am so sorry, she just ran out in front of me and I had no time to swerve."

Owner would say "Yes, I understand. I'm so sorry she got hit"

So, does the driver just walk off with no fault as a victim and a **** up front end?

Btw, I don't know how it is in NJ (why is it always folks in NJ? lol) but if you read the legal court records about children running out into the street getting hit by cars they have sided with the driver and awarded them car repair and psychological costs.

Maybe that isn't right in a way. But folks, take care of whats yours!
If we did we wouldn't have as many lawyers, gov, media folks and exorbitant fees lurking around our homes and wallets.

Sheesh.

hearingimpared

Echosphere wrote: »

Let me adjust my stance and say you are wrong, and a bit of an idiot.

In America, even if we give them our freedoms they are our responsibility. Personal liability. If that dog gets loose runs out into traffic and damages a car. YOU have to pay. Bumpers and engine mounts don't grow on trees. THEY COST MONEY. Someone has to pay. Someone ALWAYS has to pay in our market economy. So, that would be the dog owner. If the owner was negligent, then the they have to pay.

The person who hit the dog would say "I am so sorry, she just ran out in front of me and I had no time to swerve."

Owner would say "Yes, I understand. I'm so sorry she got hit"

So, does the driver just walk off with no fault as a victim and a **** up front end?

Btw, I don't know how it is in NJ (why is it always folks in NJ? lol) but if you read the legal court records about children running out into the street getting hit by cars they have sided with the driver and awarded them car repair and psychological costs.

Maybe that isn't right in a way. But folks, take care of whats yours!
If we did we wouldn't have as many lawyers, gov, media folks and exorbitant fees lurking around our homes and wallets.

Sheesh.

Louie is as far from an idiot as a genius is from a moron. While I agree with your stance I think you are out-of-line saying that he is "a bit of an idiot." What part of agree to disagree didn't you get?

danger boy

ohskigod wrote: »

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ce790ff71ff6bbbca9e18d3940bfe8d9.531&show_article=1


long and short of it. someone runs over you're dog, you're dog dies. you fight the urge to strangle the driver because hey man, you know it was an accident. Then State Farn sends YOU a bill ot repair the bumper of the guy that ran over YOUR dog.

dude, thats balls

you could prob counter sue in small claims court for psychological damages done to you by your dog being killed. and make millions.

shack

Echosphere wrote: »

Let me adjust my stance and say you are wrong, and a bit of an idiot.

Who the hell are you to call Lou an idiot? :mad:

Reported.

Echosphere

Sorry.

Ricardo

Echosphere wrote: »

Let me adjust my stance and say you are wrong, and a bit of an idiot.

Don't know about that, but I do know he could crush you with his thumb.

Echosphere

shack wrote: »

Who the hell are you to call Lou an idiot? :mad:

Reported.

Whoah. Sorry there boy.

Echosphere

Just wanted to say take care of your pets. They are not children. This is America. Put away your gun Annie.

Grab some balls girls.

petrym

This is *why* I have State Farm.

Echosphere

I like Pemco.

They are very good with accidents and general coverage.

hearingimpared

I have State Farm and they've done right by me for years. As far as the incident, being a dog owner and I love him as much as I do my boys, I would be outraged if someone were to kill him with his vehicle and then be handed a bill for damages. Right or wrong that's how I feel.

Echosphere

makes me wonder about having kids..

hearingimpared

Echosphere wrote: »

makes me wonder about having kids..

Echosphere wrote:

Is that why your kids end up here on the west coast all the time? Complaining about their parents?

You can't be serious? Kids = dogs?

Please say no...

You seem to getting more and more personal with your posts. I never said, "kids= dogs" I said I love my Moose as much as I love my boys but given the choice of having to save one over the other . . .

. . . you are being rediculous.:mad:

BTW my boys wouldn't think for a second about moving to the Left Coast.

I don't like you talking about my children like that, I don't like you calling Louie and idiot, and if you keep up this crap, you will be going on the bozo list very soon.

inspiredsports

hearingimpared wrote: »

. . . I don't like you talking about my children like that, I don't like you calling Louie and idiot, and if you keep up this crap, you will be going on the bozo list very soon.

Or, on numerous bozo lists soon.

LessisNevermore

danger boy wrote: »

you could prob counter sue in small claims court for psychological damages done to you by your dog being killed. and make millions.

Think about that for a minute.....:D:p