to make an insurance claim against my sisters in laws?

[Jellywellyfish]

This isn’t directly from me, but writing on their behalf for some honest opinions.

So, some time ago my mum got bitten by a dog which was owned by my sisters in laws. It was a very bad bite, and my mum (in her early 80s) had two big open wounds (15cm wide) and 48 puncture wounds and was taken to hospital by ambulance . The said dog was a rescue pit cross (but sister lives in country where these dogs aren’t banned) and also had a history of being a dangerous dog biting other animals and people. Dog not muzzled when my mum visited the house, and she did not know dog had previously bitten another human. She didn’t believe there was any reason to not trust the dog, but at a family gathering the dog randomly went for her biting her leg.

She was on holiday visiting my sister at the time so it basically ruined her trip and left her traumatised and post holiday she had 8+ visits to docs and hospital for checks, secondary infection, swellings etc and struggled to walk on it for months. Almost a year later it’s healed mostly but left a big dent in her leg and still causes frequent pain due to nerve damage and she can’t sleep very well. Sadly, my mum who always loved dogs is now petrified of big dogs and gets really stressed if dogs are off leads in park etc and will actively avoid parks now.

3/4 months after trip she told my sister she was going to make an insurance claim as she could claim for travel expenses and medical supplies such as bandages etc she’d had to buy over the weeks and months. She was okay with this and sent her details of hospitals she attended etc.

When the claim went through a letter was sent from a solicitor at the travel insurance company to my sisters in laws detailing what the claim was for and to request their insurance details to process a claim if there was one. This is when it hit the fan.

My sister rang my mum screaming at her asking why she got solicitors involved it was supposed to be a straight forward claim but there stuff in the claim about lack of enjoyment and that couldn’t be true as she had a good time. She said my mum had to drop the case immediately and she should have never got a solicitor involved. My mum said she didn’t actively get solicitors involved she’s just doing what insurance company says and confirmed she didn’t write the letter or tell them to put that detail in, but asked why it shouldn’t be included in the claim as it’s true.

This has caused a massive rift as my sister thinks the claim should be dropped- it’s leaving her in a very awkward position with her partner and in laws and the repercussions on her in laws. Her partner now refuses to ever speak to my mum again as they think what she’s doing is totally uncalled for. So this means my mum can never go over to see my sister again as my sisters partner will not allow it. But my sister now also says if my mum proceeds with the case she will never speak to her again.

My mum understands that it puts my sister in an awkward position but doesn’t understand why my sister can’t stay impartial enough to speak to her. My mum feels strongly like she would like to see the claim through as the whole thing genuinely affected her in a physical and mental capacity. But she also desperately wants to keep speaking to her daughter.

So, is my mum being unreasonable for pursuing an insurance claim against my sisters in laws? Or should she drop the claim out of principle because they are my sisters family?

I don’t think your mum is being unreasonable ; but finding it a bit hard to follow, as can’t work out if it’s your sister, sister in law (singular), or sisters in law (plural). Just that, if it’s her daughter, then it might be easier to resolve, than if it’s her son/daughter’s partner (which might need more intervention.)

It sounds a difficult situation.
would the in-laws settle out of court? Are they willing to compensate your mum? And would your mum accept that? If they could come to a settlement away from the courts it would probably be better for family relations.
However, the upset it must be causing your mum that the in-laws are being prioritised over her health and well-being must be awful.
They should be angry that the dog attacked your mum rather than mentally attacking her by cutting her off if she seeks justice. The dog really should be put down too as it could attack even worse in the future.

I really can’t understand if the claim is against your
sister
sister in law
sisters in law
sister’s inlaws?

It's her sister's in laws

Like other pp’s it’s a bit hard to follow who is involved and who owns the dog but regardless your mum is not being unreasonable in the slightest

The dog should be destroyed, the owners should face consequences for allowing their dog to injure another and your sister should realise that her mum is so much more important than a dog and should be doing everything she can to make your mum comfortable after being injured like that at her age

It’s the sister’s husband’s family’s dog.

OP, your sister and her husband have well and truly shown their true colours.

Please support your mum in making the claim.

It’s very telling that neither your sister’s husband or his family have offered your mum any recompense, they just want her to drop the claim and lose money. What utter bastards to upset a woman in her 80s, especially as their dog attacked your mum.

Your mum should keep pursuing the claim. She’s not causing the rift; the mad dog owners are.

Sister can get fucked. Who cares about her relationship with her in-laws atm? They brought a vicious dog into her home that attacked her elderly mum. Why hasn’t she lost her rag?

No your mom should not drop the claim. Nerve damage is a bitch ( from personal experience!)
i love animals, I believe a lot of the time it’s the owner/experience the animal’s had.
this poor dog has been through a lot, however it’s not your mom’s fault.
this IS a dangerous dog, ( this dog).
i hope there are no kids in the house.
i think your sister is being manipulated into getting your mom to drop it.
she shouldn’t though.

Did the in-laws even offer to pay the medical bills and deal with the aftermath at the time? It's obviously awkward when a family member gets injured by a pet, but even the hardest-hearted dog owner would have to admit that if your dog bites someone unprompted, you are responsible for it.

If they didn't give a shit at the time, they certainly will now...

Your elderly mother deserves to be fully compensated for any and all damages.
That dog needs to be destroyed.
Family should be mortified at what occured.

If I was the mum in this scenario, I wouldn't be talking to the daughter anyway after she allowed her dog to do this. That dog needs to be destroyed.

I also cannot make head nor tail of who is involved in this, sister, sister in law, multiple sister in laws, but I think it is besides the point.

It sounds like a truly horrendous incident and I think your mother deserves to be compensated. But at the same time, I don’t think anyone can sue a family member (which is effectively what she is doing) and expect relations to be the same afterwards. She does rightly or wrongly need to make that choice.

Truthfully, I would choose my daughter over bandages and travel costs. And I don’t in any way mean to minimise what she has been through, but will a bit of money really help. I would be more interested in ensuring that the animal is destroyed to be honest.

It sounds like maybe the mum didn't fully appreciate what was going to happen when she submitted the insurance claim, but it's a moot point because if the sister's in-laws had done the right thing and paid her costs in the first place (with pressure applied from the sister and her husband) then this would never have been an issue. Yes, this could technically be classed as an "accident", but it's a breed of dog which is known to be dangerous and the owners are legally liable.

As others have said the dog owners should be absolutely mortified. If I were them I'd be rushing to settle out of court before this gets out of hand.

Your DM is not being unreasonable at all. Everyone saying that you can’t make a claim against a relative and expect it to be the same - that’s because, if you’ve reached the point of having to claim because they’re such self-centred bastards that they expect you to suffer for their incredible stupidity and nastiness, the relationship is already dead and buried. It doesn’t mean that if you drop the claim then they’ll stop being genuinely and truly disgraceful people. The relationship between DM and the in-laws is dead either way and it was dead from the second that they allowed DM to be mauled and didn’t even think she deserved them to pay for a damn bandage!

Your sister is either a nasty arsehole too or she’s being manipulated and controlled. No genuinely decent person thinks that anyone should be mauled by a dog and that they just carry on as if nothing happened. She could have been killed. Are you able to speak to your sister without her husband there or nearby or overhearing and ask her what her genuine opinion is here? Your sister is choosing to protect her in-laws who are entirely in the wrong over your mother who is entirely in the right - that’s either because she’s a horrible person or because she’s not allowed her own opinion.

I hope to hell that the dog was destroyed and that your sister hasn’t got children anywhere near these dangerous people.

Your poor mum. Of course she’s not being unreasonable.

Your sister is being appalling. The dog should have been PTS. Your sister should try to get her head around the basics of how an insurance claim works in this situation and why it requires solicitors to be involved. Her family member just needs to pass everything on to their insurance company. .

Pathetic response..."she must have had a good time here.

Tell them to grow up it's not personal

To clear a few things up due to my terrible grammar!

• dog belonged to my sister’s inlaws (her partner’s parents). For sake of confusion I will call her inlaws ‘The Smiths’
• The Smiths had owned the dog for approx 8/9 months prior to this but it had already attacked a dog and a child at their home (bit the child’s leg and said child had to be taken to hospital in ambulance also). My mum did not know it had attacked a child prior. The dog was taken away by the fire brigade who attended the scene as they could see on their records the dog had bitten someone before so they removed the dog and it was destroyed.

• My sister’s relationship with her partner is a bit of an odd one. They have been together for 12 years or so but bizarrely myself or my family do not have any kind of relationship with her partner (just more polite/amicable) - we do feel as though there is manipulation going on as any friends my sister had have gone. She has no one but her partner and their small group of friends. They got married without telling anyone, not even me and I’m very very close to my sister.
• The dog is insured by The Smiths and although a pit cross the country where they live don’t deem them dangerous breeds although you cannot legally own the breed in the UK.

• The Smiths have not suggested they will settle out of court but when they realised my mum had raised a claim they offered to buy her a flight to see my sister and asked in return for my mum to drop the claim

• I am very close to my sister and have been talking to her all the way through. I have tried to help her see things from my mums point of view but there is absolutely no telling her. She’s mortified my mum has done this to her inlaws and I suspect that is because she’s in another country and her partner and her in laws are the only people she has in her life. Read into that what you will. My sister has also said if I agree with my mum then she will stop speaking to me. I have said that her choice to not speak to our mum is hers to take and I will continue to have a relationship with both her and my mum. She is upset that it means she can’t come home anymore and she blames my mum for this because my mum has an opportunity to drop the case but won’t

• I agree that my mum should have given my sister a heads up about the letter which was going to be sent to her inlaws. They would have still been unhappy but she should have been transparent.

• Immediately after it happened my sister’s inlaws paid the medical bills at the hospital so my mum wouldn’t have to be out of pocket for this. They also brought my mum some new trainers as hers filled with blood, and they paid £150 for a taxi from the airport in the UK to her house as my mum was fretting about an 8 hour flight and then a four hour bus journey when she landed in the UK- she was travelling alone.

• Sadly, once my mum had left the county my sister’s partner nor her inlaws failed to make any contact with my mum to see how she was. Not in the days/weeks or months afterwards. I think it may have been a case of out of sight out of mind but my sister has since said they were embarrassed about what had happened which is why they didn’t reach out.

• I think my mum was a bit naive and didn’t quite realise how complicated this would get and how legal it might become. I think she genuinely felt she deserved some compensation for the taxis she had to pay for to get too and from hospital when she was home as it wasn’t her fault.

Firstly, thank goodness the dog was destroyed, but the Smiths really need to take responsibility since it had already bitten a child. The fact they didn't tell your mum, or more sensibly keep the dog away from guests was really negligent

The other thing I've taken from your update is that your sister sounds like she is possibly in an abusive relationship and her DH is controlling her and undermining her relationships. Although your mum is perfectly in her rights to pursue the compensation, if I was her I'd be more worried about your sister and her having somewhere to go if she ever decides to leave

Even if your mum dropped the claim the relationship is likely dead and buried anyway, so she should pursue the claim.

Op you write
Immediately after it happened my sister’s inlaws paid the medical bills at the hospital so my mum wouldn’t have to be out of pocket for this. They also brought my mum some new trainers as hers filled with blood, and they paid £150 for a taxi from the airport in the UK to her house as my mum was fretting about an 8 hour flight and then a four hour bus journey when she landed in the UK- she was travelling alone

so why is there an insurance claim when everything was reimbursed?

I think the fact that the dog wasn't destroyed after it had bitten A CHILD lends itself to their character. Sue the hell out of them. If your sister is unable to understand that it's not personal - it's one insurance company paying another (in this case The Smiths who didn't bother to insure their dangerous dog) then she's really not very bright.

What is she claiming for if she is not out of pocket? They may not have contacted her directly but presumably your sister gave updates on her recovery.

@LIZS
no wonder the inlaws are miffed if they paid everything in full then have an insurance claim against them for the same costs!!!!

I voted yanbu until I saw that your mum had been reimbursed. Exactly what is she claiming for through insurance...ongoing medical?