Posted on 05/27/2010 7:59:53 PM PDT by Daffynition
...About two months later, on May 17, Flemming received a bill for $1,732.80 from State Farm Insurance.
The letter, which included five pages of documentation and three pages of photographs, explained that State Farm had received a claim for damages from the driver.
“Our investigation into this matter has found you to be 100-per-cent responsible. As such, we are looking to you for reimbursement,” the letter stated.
The bill included the cost of parts and labour for fixing the bumper, as well as the cost of a rental car.
“We’ve lost part of our family and now we have to reimburse this insurance company? It brought back the grief for us all,” Flemming said.
State Farm interviewed the driver, police and other witnesses, said spokesman John Bordignon, adding that Canadian courts have found that the rules of negligence apply in such cases.
“This is an incredibly unfortunate circumstance, but we’re going by the precedent that we have. We see no negligence on the part of the driver and according to law, we believe the owners were negligent in the sense that they could have made sure their dog wasn’t free on the roadway,” Bordignon said.
“By law, we have a right to pursue our customer’s interest in this matter in terms of the damage to the vehicle.”
State Farm has told the Flemmings it can pursue costs through their homeowner liability insurance, rather than through them personally, Bordignon added.
Asked how a case involving a pet would differ from one involving a pedestrian or cyclist, Bordignon responded: “We look at each case on its individual merits. We have to consider the rights of our customers who incurred damage or injury, but depending on the situation all circumstances are looked at before any decision to subrogate is made.
“There are many instances where we haven’t pursued subrogation when a pedestrian or cyclist is killed in a motor vehicle accident.”
The Flemmings said Jake, who weighed about 70 pounds, was accustomed to roaming the area around the family’s home.
Aurora bylaws require a pet to be on a leash when off the owner’s property.
The family has informed State Farm they do not plan to pay the bill, and are considering their options.
“The whole thing is just macabre. We were deemed 100-per-cent responsible. Isn’t the driver responsible for how they operate their vehicle?” Flemming said.
“I think going to this level is insulting,” Flemming’s daughter, Katherine, said, her voice breaking. “We’ve lost a member of our family but we’re supposed to pay for the damage to her bumper? That’s just wrong.”
LOL good one both of you
Sounds like the court will be deciding this one b/c the dog owner is refusing to pay.
I am a dog owner, and a dog lover.
The dog belonged on a leash.
The reason the dog is dead is because it’s owner was lazy, irresponsible, and inconsiderate.
What if the leashless dog attacked a baby in a stroller? Would you suggest to me that it was the babies fault for being defenseless?
You are attempting to insinuate culpability on the part of the driver, when the responsibility of the dog, it’s safety, and the safety of everyone around the dog is the sole responsibility of the dog owner.
If you don’t have the time or desire to take proper care of a dog, then don’t own one.
Could the answer be..They are canadians?
My dog Teesha use to eat hers...made cleaning the yard easier....yuk/
Woof!
Sorry to hear about your dog. And I think that’s exactly what’s going here — insurance fraud, with the insurer complicit. Hopefully the owner will continue refusing to pay, and State Farm will have to consider how much it would cost to take her to court, and what the chances are the court proceeding wouldn’t raise some uncomfortable questions such as I’ve raised.
The driver is responsible for driving within the speed limit. The death of the dog isn’t directly the issue here — the cost of the bumper repair is. And speed has everything to with that (not to mention that the dog-impact would likely not have happened at all if the driver hadn’t been speeding).
Gee, why not? If the pedestrian or cyclist was where they weren't supposed to be, why on earth would State Farm hesitate to sue the estate of the deceased for the cost of repairing damage to a vehicle caused by the impact of the deceased's no-right-to-be-there body?
Do you have any proof that the driver was speeding other than your own specualtion?
The fact that the dog was allowed to run the streets without a leash is proof that the dog owner was negligent.
What should be the consequence for this dog owner?
It’s very likely that the driver was speeding (or else that the bumper damage was really from some prior collision). And/or yakking on a cell phone or otherwise failing to drive safely. 12 year old Labradors don’t suddenly dart into a road like a deer(or like a young child). The consequence for the dog owner is that her dog is dead.
“It’s very likely that the driver was speeding”
Your opinion. Do you even know what the speed limit is for the street on which this accident occurred? Perhaps it was 30 mph like the residential street just up the road from here.
“(or else that the bumper damage was really from some prior collision).”
Your opinion. Did you investigate the vehicle personally? Do you have any proof outside of your own speculation that damage existed to the bumper prior to contact with the dog?
“And/or yakking on a cell phone or otherwise failing to drive safely.”
I saw nothing in this story that indicated the driver was “yakking” or otherwise driving dangerously. Was he charged by police for such? You are quick to assume negligence on the part of one party with zero evidence of such, but you ignore clear evidence of negligence on the part of the other party.
“12 year old Labradors don’t suddenly dart into a road like a deer(or like a young child).”
Your opinion. Were you there? Did you investigate the scene? How do you know that the dog did not enter the street from between two parked cars? Have you done studies on the behavior of 12 year old labs allowed to run leashless by their owners? What is the nature of your expertise on the subject of the behavior of 12 year old labs?
“The consequence for the dog owner is that her dog is dead.”
Yep. That is what happens when you are a neglectful dog owner. I bet she won’t do this again.
ONLY if local laws BAN letting a pooch wander Un-leashed!!!.
In rural areas and many townships letting “Fido” out, un-attended is the NORM.
By Your view; Drivers that hit a Deer on federal lands or on a Government ROAD should be able to claim damages from the Government {some government agency must OWN the Deer}.
Hyperbole, much? ;^)
That’s a mine field I’m not going anywhere near! ;)
I know. I grew up in such an area. Having dogs run over by cars is also common place in those areas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.