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?

This is grim and I can understand your mum wanting to get some reimbursement for a traumatic holiday. But she’s faced with stark choices: pursuit the claim and risk the relationship with the family; or, drop the claim and try to move on. I don’t know what the owners were thinking allowing an unpredictable large dog to mingle around family members? If your mum decides to drop the claim and visit them again , I hope the in laws keep any new dogs away from the house.

Guys read the update from op. The dog was PTS by the authorities.

Seems like your mother's old age has been ruined by this dog bite, limited mobility, ongoing nerve damage, continuing hospital visits, she will probably never fully recover at her age. Not to mention the mental and emotional trauma. She should get whatever she can from the insurance she will need it for her future care. Absolutely devastating for her. The sister should be begging for forgiveness not trying to blackmail her mother.

Yes I think she is being unreasonable. She's in her 80s! She's not got much time left in life amd her relationship with her daughter should come first over some claim that would cause a rift in any relationship

Yes this is what I was thinking:

1- Mum claims travel insurance
2 - Travel insurance pays out £X
3 - Travel insurance claims £X from liable party
4 - If liable party have insurance (pet insurance policy may cover it; might be some other Personal Legal Protection policy) then the two insurance companies either agree together, or liable party settles with Travel Insurance and recharges Own Insurance Cover
5 - If Liable Party have no cover, they pay Travel Insurance settlement out of pocket

6 - the breed is not banned in the country, but is there a rule that such "registered incidents" that lead to civil or criminal action are reported and can cause repercussions for the animal, and they're also concerned about that?

7 - If sister lives abroad with DH and his family network, threats to be cut off in certain ways from home (Mum banned from visiting) but also probably pushed out in the cold there as well aren't going to help her behave rationally

Suggest you get really clear understanding of each issue at hand. YANBU claiming the costs from the insurance, but the fall out needs unravelled, understood and considered before all parties can decide the best way forwards

I think the opposite: 80s and not much time left and that time has been made bloody miserable by this dog, and she’d like compensation for the horror. Nothing stopping her daughter siding with her and supporting her in this.

I'm assuming from the Smiths' perspective they have paid the medical expenses (likely thousands of dollars) and extra travel expenses for OP's mother to travel home more comfortably.

They are now potentially going to be hit with more expense (especially if their insurance company decides not to cover the dog, which is possible) at a time when they thought things were sorted.

I do feel sorry for OP's sister (and concerned for her in that relationship) as she is stuck in the middle, but threatening to go no contact with her mother is not helpful.

I think she should let it go. The dog has been destroyed, the Smiths paid for the majority of the expenses and she is getting counselling on the NHS. It is not worth a rift with her daughter.
She is out of pocket for the cruise and the taxis. It might be worth discussing that.

It's a tricky one but it looks as if the relationship is damaged now so nothing to salvage.
Your mum has suffered terribly and she's out of picket too. Who does SIL think insurers get to investigate and process claims, the office junior? It's about someone being held legally responsible.
Do they actually have insurance for the dog? Can you I insure a dog that has a history of biting? Do they still have the dog?
Sounds to me like they don't have insurance, and they are more concerned about their finacial welfare or the dog (if its still around). That's let your MIL know where her welfare comes in the pecking order.
I'd say the relationship is no longer salvageable. Proceed with the claim.

So she doesn't have many out of pocket expenses, it's mainly damages for intangible things like emotional distress?

You might not know that other countries approach this stuff in a very different way, we have the tort of negligence but other countries take a less victim friendly approach.

If it's international, are you sure you can get the money if they refuse to pay up? Is the money coming from in laws or insurance?

Did they claim for the cruise cancellation separately? Did dsis have insurance cover?

This got a bit more complicated based on the updates. It's good that the Smiths paid in the first place (and that the dog was destroyed) but as there's nerve damage and ongoing care involved, I still don't think your mum is in the wrong. The whole point of having insurance is to cover unexpected expenses and provide some level of security.

The fact that they were so against her claiming on insurance in the first place is very suspect. I would speculate that the Smiths and their son (and now your sister) know that the dog's insurance won't cover the event because it had a history of attacking a child - they probably didn't tell the insurance company this in the first place, but it's now on record. As such, the insurance won't pay out and they're left liable. They should have liability cover through their home insurance, but it may result in a whacking great increase to their premiums. Still, it's better than bankruptcy.

None of this is your mum's fault though - the Smiths shouldn't have had the dog in the first place, but then as they did, they should have been honest with the insurance company. If they lied and now their cover is void (or they wouldn't have got cover if they'd been honest) that's totally on them. Would they still be so adamant if the dog had injured one of their nephews/nieces?

Unfortunately your mum is going to have to shoulder the pain of losing communication with her daughter, but that's all she should have to lose here. Your sister is caught in a rough position but none of this is your poor mum's fault - it's a lot more than just a ruined holiday.

It's also worth noting that if the dog had attacked a random person in the street, they would still have been in for all this and more. The only alternative is for them to basically hand a blank cheque to the person injured in perpetuity. They're being incredibly cheeky by trying to leverage the relationship and guilt to stop the claim being pursued.

This is why you have insurance, you hand it over to them (both parties) and let them sort it out. It isn't personal and I don't see why anyone should get upset. Tell your sister to let the insurers do their thing.

Ah see I can see why you’re frustrated by this as clearly you like to buy and eat certain foods, and equally you don’t want to waste stuff that’s given to you. But honestly? I think YABU. I love it when my FIL occasionally gives us a bag of random crap after his weekly trip to Lidl. It shows he’s thinking of us as he’s going around the supermarket - but then I do like to be thrifty and appreciate the few pounds it saves me.

As you have a baby the way, if you will want future help and input from your MIL, I’d gently suggest you suck it up, be grateful, and chuck away anything you don’t have a use for, or maybe be a bit more vocal about things that would be useful - particularly if she gets pleasure from buying you things- oh next time you’re at ASDA could you grab us XYZ? (Or failing all else invite her over for a meal and feed it straight back to her, maybe that’s her primary motivation for doing it?!)

The whole point of insurance is to cover damages and distress. Some people take these things personally when they shouldn't. The Smiths insurance company will pay out, not the Smiths themselves.

I think your mum needs to remember she is basically claiming against your sister. So if she does claim your sister is going to be paying increased premiums for the foreseeable future all because of an accident. All insurance policies be it animals, car, house etc ask if you have ever had a claim made against you.

It comes down to whether your mum would rather have the money back or a relationship with your sister. I know if it was me I would rather have the relationship than any amount of money. But then I would have asked for it to be closed with high strength antibiotics so I could enjoy the rest of my holiday and dealt with it later.

Well if OP’s mum remembers that, then it would be a false memory, because it’s not her daughter’s insurance, it’s her daughter’s parents in laws insurance,

@Glorianna so your daughters family, your still asking them to pull out hundreds of pounds for a minor injury.

It's with the insurers now - there's no turning back until their solicitors are satisfied.

@Sacmagique75; wrong thread!

Your poor mum, She;s 80 for gods sake,
I shouldnt think shed evan want to visit again incase the dog is there. The owners clearly have no sense of responsibility if they allow around strangers when its already bitten other people and dogs. What on earth is wrong with them?
Your sister should be more sympathetic towards your mum instead of worrying how this has upset her DH and inlaws

Don’t be silly. The claim will be against the Smith’s insurance company.

The Smiths only financial loss will be an increase in their annual insurance premiums. For having an out of control dangerous dog, they need to suck it up graciously.

I’m guessing you’ve never suffered a serious injury you had to claim for, otherwise, you wouldn’t post such nonsense.

My only question is why does your sister have so little care for your Mum?

It sounds like your poor Mum has really been through it. Of course she is entitled to any financial aid, regardless of who's dog bit her.

Your sister sounds awful and her DH & family sound like controlling bullies.

The fact that they were so against her claiming on insurance in the first place is very suspect. I would speculate that the Smiths and their son (and now your sister) know that the dog's insurance won't cover the event because it had a history of attacking a child - they probably didn't tell the insurance company this in the first place, but it's now on record. As such, the insurance won't pay out and they're left liable. They should have liability cover through their home insurance, but it may result in a whacking great increase to their premiums. Still, it's better than bankruptcy.

if this is the case then I would genuinely enjoy the financial downfall of such horrible illegal bastards who kept alive an assassin dog after it has bitten a child.

people need to think twice about getting dogs.