I have comprehensive and collision insurance with the highest deductibles the insurance company will allow. $5000 I think. I save quite a bit on premiums this way.
In any event comprehensive and collision are never required, only liability.
This is an open and shut case, the dog owner is liable. Both for damages and for the death of her dog.
If she doesn't have to pay for the damages, the driver of the car is being forced to subsidize her irresponsible behavior.
“I have comprehensive and collision insurance with the highest deductibles the insurance company will allow. $5000 I think. I save quite a bit on premiums this way.”
______________________________________________________________
Yes, you do save quite a bit on premiums that way. Why? Because you assume the risk for the first $5000. I applaud you for being in the tax bracket that the libs want to soak. A $5000 deductible indicates that you own a fine piece of automotive engineering and that you have the financial wherewithal to absorb the $5K ding.
Insurance, used properly, covers a loss that you can not afford; not what you don’t want to lose.
Many coverages that we purchase are not “required”, but not availing oneself of them leaves you at risk. If one has casual sex, without “coverage”, and contracts an STD; can the other person be sued for negligence to recover cost for treatment, loss of wages, damage to reputation, etc?
There was a deliberate decision made to decline Coll/Comp coverage. The driver has to cowboy up and live with that.