Why is HE suing the owners? File the claim with his insurance company, get his car fixed, and let the insurance lawyers file a suit to reclaim the damages. That is one great reason for having insurance coverage, you get lawyers just waiting to sue someone.
Now, if the driver doesn’t have insurance, why is he allowed to drive?
Hello??
Most States requite liability insurance. None require collision/comprehensive. Getting ones own insurance company involved is like asking them to raise your rates.
ML/NJ
That is an EXCELLENT question, sir.
Now, if the driver doesn’t have insurance, why is he allowed to drive?
If he's driving an older car that's paid off then it is possible he only has the minimum liability insurance that's required by law. This won't pay for damage done to his vehicle. This isn't unusual.
More importantly, why should this guy just suck it up and eat $1,100 bucks worth of damage done to his vehicle and lost wages for something that wasn't his fault?
I feel bad these folks lost their dog but they should have been more responsible. They should pay up.
He probably only has liability insurance, not collision. It isn’t cost effective to have the collision with an older car. The pet owners are responsible for the damage done (through negligence), and should be forced to pay up.
Excellent point.
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.