| Author |
 Topic  |
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
 Posted - 08/23/2003 : 16:34:07
|
| I don't think Ahnold has had a mullet since he did Conan The Barbarian. |
 |
|
|
slowhandfan
USA
26 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2003 : 17:21:04
|
| So I guess anytime a dog bites an innocent person it's the dog owner's fault? Please, dogs are nothing more than animals. Always have been and always will be. If a person chooses to have one as a pet, that's fine. That is there freedom to choose to do so, but....they can't bitch about an insurance company seeing this as liability risk. No more than driving a sports car or luxury car increases your rates in auto insurance. You pay for your choices. If you don't like them, make different choices. |
|
|
|
slowhandfan
USA
26 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2003 : 17:26:29
|
Information taken from www.dogbitelaw.com
There are almost 5 million dog bites per year. About 800,000 victims per year require medical treatment. 1,000 dog bite victims per day are seen in hospital emergency rooms. Dog bites cause losses that exceed $1 billion per year, with $310 million paid by insurance.
Kids are the main victims. More than half of the victims who receive medical attention are children -- most of whom are bitten in the face. The attacking dog usually is owned by the victim's family, a friend or a neighbor. For children, dog bites now cause more emergency room visits than any other activity except playing baseball and softball, exceeding injuries brought about by playground accidents, ATV's, inline skates, skateboards and volleyball.
The problem is growing. A 10-year study showed that the number of dog bites rose 37%, while the number of dogs kept as pets increased by only 2%. For example, there were 4.3 million dog bites reported to authorities in 1996, and 4.7 million in 1999, according to the Insurance Information Institute. The insurance industry paid $310 million on dog bite claims in 2001. Five years ago, the industry paid only $250 million. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2003 : 21:29:52
|
| Those stats point to two things, more irresponsible dog owners and a more litigious society. |
|
|
|
TedPasan
82 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2003 : 08:13:27
|
| Kile if your child was bitten or disfigured by a neighbor's dog, you no doubt would be as equally litigious as the others in our increasingly "litigious society." These innocent children hurt, maimed, disfigured and killed by pit bulls, rottweilers, chows and other aggressive canine breeds should and thankfully do have access to a justice system which compensates them for their damages and injuries while hopefully correcting or at least sending the message that negligence will not be tolerated by a civil society. |
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2003 : 08:50:33
|
Hey Folks.....Kile has a point....Dogs are like Children...they must be loved, supervised, trained and never left alone to wander off your property.......YOU must be responsible....just like raising children.......as a mater of fact, breeds such as the Shepherd have the IQ equivalent to that of a 5-7 year old........Would you allow your 5 or 7 year old to wander the streets????? Then why let your dog?????
Oh By the way Slowhandan......I resent the profiling and the discrimination voiced in your statement about sport cars.....I've owned Corvettes and Motocycles since I was 17 and I am now 52......have never wrecked a Corvette and I have been down three times on a bike......Guess who was at fault when I went down........Not any body in a sports car...but your typical, average driver, driving a non distintive sedan......Just not paying attention.....as usual......I guess the point is YOU must be Responsile for your actions and those in your charge.........Insurance should be based on the Individual drivers record and not solely on the vehicle driven...yes, the cost for physical damage should be higher for the higher priced vehicle...but not liability....... |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2003 : 09:52:38
|
| Sorry, Ted, but I, unlike most of my countrymen, am not so quick to run to a lawyer everytime life doesn't go my way. I guess it would depend on the situation. If my child climbed a fence and was trespassing in the yard of a neighbor I definitely would not sue anyone. If my child was playing in the front yard and a dog nipped him and he had a scratch I would not sue but I believe the majority of people in this lottery happy society would. Now if it was a cas of severe negligence and my child was simply minding his own business and a dog visciously attacked him and caused permanent damage then I would probably persue some sort of recourse. But if there is negligence and punishment is called for, that is what criminal courts are for. This mentality that civil courts are meant to send a message and to uphold the values of a civil society is BS. Civil lawsuits are meant to put the aggrieved party back in their pre-loss condition. I don't belive punitive damages should exist, if a person needs to be punished they should do it in criminal court. |
|
|
|
slowhandfan
USA
26 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2003 : 10:30:46
|
| my comment on sports cars was a general use to prove a point. Insurance rates on sports cars are always higher than a regular car, just like they are higher for luxury cars. My point was if you want to drive a vette then your gonna agree to pay higher insurance rates. No different than if you want to own a dog then maybe it will cost you on your homeowners rates. That's all I was saying. Please people, let's not start comparing dogs to children. Next thing you know you guys will want photos of missing dogs on milk cartons. |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2003 : 10:51:18
|
| Whoa, Hoss! Now there's an idea...let's start putting the dogs paws in plastic milk jugs along with a lamp shade around their neck. That oughta slow down the dog bite rate! |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2003 : 13:47:00
|
| Question- Why did the Homeowners Policys in Texas always cost 50 to 100% more $ than the other 49 states? |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2003 : 14:45:21
|
| I don't know for sure, but I assume it has something to do with the way the policy was written and the laws of the state of Texas combined with the fact that Texas has some pretty wild weather. |
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2003 : 20:40:11
|
| Slowhandfan--The comparison between the dog and the child is true, especially when teaching the child and training the dog........the responsibilities that a parent has towards the child and as a result of the child, are also very similar....again, we are back to responsibility of the parent for the child and the responsibility of the owner for the dog......the behavior and social skills of the child are learned from the parents.....while the dog is trained by setting limits and parameters in which they function....the dogs interaction with strangers is greatly influenced by the way in which the owners interact with others......so, there is a great similarity between the two.....The Home Owners Insurance issue is not a increase of premium dollar due to having a dog that is on the "hit"list, but the fact that INSURANCE IS NOT AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF DOG OWNERSHIP...and I feel that is unfair..My State Farm agent told me that if it wasn't for the fact that I have been with State Farm for the past 25 years with no claims, that they would have a serious problem with renewal because of Shadow...and if I were new business, they could not write me because of Shadow........On the sports car/luxury car thing...I have no problem with the physical damage premiums being higher...it is the profiling and the liability rates being higher based on the vehicle rather than the driver...that is not right....never has and never will be.....and just because some underwriter says it is okay, does not make it so.... |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2003 : 01:46:54
|
I don't understand why liability rates are different based on the car either. There are only 2 possible reasons I can think of. They figure that if you have 350 horsepower you're going to use it and they must have some sort of statistics to show that people who own these cars tend to cause more damage than people who don't. The reason insurance companies raise and lower rates is the same reason that Congress writes tax law. They want to influence your behavior. They don't want to insure cars with higher loss rates and higher repair costs or owners of dogs with a bad history. So they raise the rates. They don't want you to have a swimming pool so they charge you more to insure you. They like it if you have a security system in your home and they like it if you live near a fire house, so they lower your rates. The government wants businesses to invest in capitol and equipment so they give them tax breaks, it's the same principle.
I also think that underwriters are looking at the big picture rather than individuals. A person who has a home security system is probably more likely to be security conscious and therefore a better risk. A person who owns a high powered sports car doesn't purchase it for taking the kids to school and getting the groceries. It goes back to the reason they want to use credit scores to set premiums. A person who pays his bills on time is probably more responsible and more likely to do maintenance and upkeep on his house than a person who doesn't pay his bills.
Yes it is profiling, and it isn't always bad. Lets not forget that the reason stereotypes exist is because people see evidence that they are true in real life. This could be from selective observation but it can also be because it tends to be the truth. Insurance companies have to have some standards on which to base premiums and it would be very impractical for an underwriter to visit each individual and have a heart to heart before they are insured. That's why they have to look at trends and past lost experience. Sometimes this leads to putting a square peg into a round hole but until something better comes along it's what they are going to do. |
Edited by - KileAnderson on 08/25/2003 01:48:15 |
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2003 : 06:10:47
|
Kile,
You raise some very good points.....I never disgreed about the higher rates for the higher dollar vehicles for physical damage, but as you said, you don't understand why the different liability charges......I do not think profiling is a good thing....we all do it.every day of our lives......everywhere we go and whenever we interact with other people......but that does not make right.....it is discrimination, pure and simple...profiling is just another word for stereo typing......and it is wrong to do so....Maybe and underwriter visiting each insured is impractical, but more inspections by independents and maybe qualified agents would sure help---especially on the property side..... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Insurers bite dog owners square in the pocketbook
Forum Locked
