“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?”
_______________________________________________________________
Why, because he declined the coverage that this incident called for.
When you have an accident, with full coverage, you never are made completely whole. There is never compensation for arranging towing, getting estimates, etc.
It’s a frivolous law suit. The attorney fees will be larger than the amount sued for. And, if he is suing in small claims court, he may, and I stress may, get a judgment; but there is no enforcement of the decree.
He wasn't required to carry full coverage. This doesn't mean he should be SOL because of someone else's irresponsible, careless behavior.
Even if he had c/c insurance, why should he pay the deductible and suffer higher rates because of someone else's irresponsible, careless behavior?
And for everyone calling this an "accident" well, there wouldn't have been an "accident" if it wasn't for the dog owners' irresponsible, careless behavior.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. The driver of the car did nothing wrong. People need to take responsibility for their decisions --and this includes the decision to own a pet. Amazing that this concept seems so unreasonable here on FR.
Read some of these posts. We have people trying to blame the driver for speeding (he wasn't cited) and for driving an older vehicle. Ridiculous! The only thing this guy did wrong was to happen to be at the wrong place when irresponsible, careless dog owners let their animals run freely in the streets and then he had the nerve to expect some measure of compensation for the financial loss he has had to endure courtesy of these irresponsible, careless people.