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?

They sound like terrible dog-owners BUT I completely understand why they are pissed off with the insurance claim if they had paid your mum's medical bills plus taxi/trainers already. If I were your mum, a relationship with my daughter would be more important to me than a bit of extra money.

The fog should be PTS.

I’m going to make a couple of assumptions.

1.The Smiths live is the USA where legal claims can be astronomical.
2.They are not insured.

The chances are they could be ruined by a legal action. Has your sister discussed any of this with you? I think this is absolutely vital in deciding whether the pursue the case or not. If they are insured then this isn’t in any way personal- a bit like claiming for any accident that takes place on the property of another person. If they are not insured then she really will have to choose.

Not easy. Do you have any idea of the value of the claim? Even if it’s relatively modest the legal fees could be extremely high.

Your mum is not being unreasonable. She is in the right to claim. If she goes ahead or not, the relationship going forward will still suffer. In her shoes, I will drop the claim but I will also not visit your sister again.

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

Depends what else the travel insurer covered - further medical treatment/consultations after the initial stages perhaps? Nerve damage would require a lot of follow up.

As a PP has said the onward claim was instigated by the insurers selling to recover their outlay from the third party wrongdoers. This is called subrogated recovery and it's in the insurance policy small print that the policyholder must allow it. The insurer/their solicitor has probably asked the mum if she wants to add any uninsured losses to the claim i.e. Compensation for the actual injury (known as general damages) and she probably said yes as the solicitors were doing the recovery claim anyway. THAT is the only bit that the mum has authority to drop. If she drops the uninsured loss element of the claim the subrogated claim will still continue - it won't all go away. If the Smith dog insurance includes liability cover then the two insurers just deal with each other.

The in laws sound appalling and your sister's husband controlling. Your mum has nothing to feel bad for though it's sad she's effectively been cut off from your sister because of the bloody dog attack! I think all you and she can do is let your sister know you are there for her if she needs you.

Its insurance to insurance, no idea why your sister is taking it so personally??

Well it’s a bit of a funny one as when it happened the smiths were adamant they paid the medial costs. While there she wanted to ask her insurance if they could upgrad her seat on the flight to business or first to get more leg room so she didn’t have to sit in coach with a bad leg for a long flight but they were all insistent with her that she not touch travel insurance and that’s why they paid for a taxi the other end. she was just a bit bewildered by it all so went along with it. She is claiming for the cost of the flight for a holiday she didn’t get to enjoy as this happened four days into her 2.5 week trip. She and my sister were also supposed to go on a cruise while she was there which my mum paid for which obviously couldn’t happen either. She basically spent three weeks in an apartment recovering so she was well enough and the wound in a stable enough state to fly home. There were also 5/6 trips to the hospital after coming home, so around £120s worth of taxis and medical supplies for dressing the wound x3 times a day (with dog bites they basically leave the wound open as bacteria can thrive so has to be left to weep and is very messy) and also some private physio as the wait list was astronomical and given her age she didn’t want to wait as she wants to ensure she stays mobile. She is also following up with counselling but that is via nhs as this time. She has said she will reimburse the medical expenses if the claim was successful. Also the claim will sort of future proof her for future problems which may arise from it so she could go private rather than wait for the nhs.

My mum asked if they’re insured before she contacted her insurance. They do have insurance which is why she went ahead with it.

they really don’t know but it could in the thousands. But as the smiths are insured it would only effect their premiums from what I understand, so not bankrupt them. My mum would never pursue if that was the case.

The smiths paid for the medical bills etc and I guess they did all that in the hope they wouldn't have the stress of letters from solicitors and insurance companies dropping on their doormat. Yeah your mum might be within her rights to take this action but it's not something I would do against family.

She could have claimed on her travel insurance. But she chose not to on their say-so? I don't think she would get flight cost back, it is only to put her in same position and she flew there and back.

It sounds like your sister isn’t in a very good position, with a family who own a dog who attacks humans and a partner who will ban her mum from visiting her. Sounds like an awful unsafe situation for her.

No you’re right, although she included the flight in the claim they have said she took the flights so she can’t be reimbursed. The cruise is hopeful.
my mum is 82 and was quite frankly traumatised when this happened (I spoke to her daily after it happened and she was crying and quite inconsolable) and it was all quite a lot for her to deal with and she trusted what she was being told to do. As her family back in the UK we had never experienced anything like this before and trusted my sister would ensure they were doing all they could do make her trip home comfortable.

Agree, money or daughter.

I am a dog lover. A lifelong devotee if you like. I have always owned dogs and admired most breeds.
If this were my mum and she had been bitten like this and it were my dog that had inflicted the wounds I would have taken the animal and had it pts myself for the sake of everyone concerned including the dog.

For the sake of a few hundred pounds which as I understand your mum spent on taxis and dressing in the UK, I would not ruin my relationship with my daughter or cause her problems with her in-laws when she's abroad with just her in-laws as family.

The cost of the cruise your mum could have claimed on her travel insurance.

The dog was already taken away and PTS

This.

Your poor mum. If I were your sister I would have the dog pts.

Could be a kid’s face next time.

I cant ever see a situation where a family member puts an insurance claim and solicitors against another family member, and the relationship carrying on as normal.

So you'd prefer to have insurance that pays out to everyone except your own family members? Mad.

A lot of people on this thread not understanding how third party liability insurance works.

If she thought it was just an insurance claim then I can see why she is annoyed. She probably thought is would be purely financial to settle the medical bills and that would be the end of it.

by getting solicitors involved she’s probably now worried that she will be left with conditions on the dog ownership- it must be muzzled or maybe destroyed. I can see why she is worried. They situation has changed from what she agreed to.

whether you think she should keep the dog or not, the point is that the nature of the claim has changed from what she agreed to.

I can see why your dm would make further claims. The poor lady is now spending her last years in constant pain and in fear. The Smiths should have never allowed that dog in the vicinity of people after it attacked a child and another dog! They put your mum in danger, they are the reason she is now spending time at physio and extra doctors appointments when she's at such an age. Them paying for medical fees and a taxi home seem to be hoping this would pacify her. I'm not saying your mum is out for every penny but obviously the insurance company have raised an issue for compensation which she rightly deserves. It's complicate with your sister in this relationship with her in laws but I would be absolutely moritified it my very elderly mother was attacked in such a way by a dog with a history like this one.

100% this.

I know you’ve said they have insurance but does it cover a known-to-be dangerous dog with a bite history? I can imagine a lot of insurers would try to avoid paying out on that. A bit like having someone fall through a floor that is well known to be completely rotten in places.

That dog needs to be pts

I can't believe how grim your sister is being about it all
She is making it into a bigger problem by refusing to comply

Your mum shouldn't have to endure this, sister should have reimbursed her immediately anyway

Go no contact with her

She also sounds like she is in a coercive relationship

Does your sister have kids? I would be totally panicked about them being around the dog

Such a balanced post with good advice and it's so true too