Assuming that you are correct about the insurance coverage, he willfully declined the collision/comp available to him. That was a conscious decision on his part to assume the risk. That is just not semantics. Assuming risk has meaning in the real world. To decide to manage the coll/comp side of an auto policy is way cool until until the obligatory aspect of that decision presents itself. Nonetheless, at the time insurance was taken out, the choice was a rational one, since a 97 Honda Civic, with 120,000 miles on it, in fair condition, in the Midwest has a trade-in value of about $1600.
The $1100 estimate is for a body shop to do an A-1 repair. The vehicle does not deserve that kind of restoration - kinda like giving Helen Thomas a spa treatment.
I might even agree with you if he actually got the car repaired and the owners of the dog paid the bill directly to the shop, but as in many cases of cars that old, the driver takes the money makes the necessary mechanical repairs using bone yard parts and pockets the difference. In your opinion, is he entitled to do that?
He declined coverage of accidents for which he was responsible and no-fault accidents. He's arguing that the dog-owners were responsible for this accident, in which case his insurance status is irrelevant.