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 making a claim on insurance has that big an effect on future premiums. I've claimed for flooding damage and my insurance didn't go up, I claimed for damage to my car when DD had an accident and again the increase in insurance was very small. Yes it might have some impact but I don't think it will be that big an issue that people are making out.

An assassin dog 🤣🤣🤣 is it running round with a gun in its paws!! Quick the rabbit bit me earlier as I tried to stop it electrocuting it's self, do you want it PTS aswell. Animals aren't soft they sometimes lash out. The problem is humans think they are better than every other animal and can't possibly get hurt. We heal it's not the end of the world I might have a small mark off it's teeth which I can get laser on to fade more likely it will be added to the other scars off animals! I wouldn't dream of claiming against someone insurance especially family for a flesh wound, I also wouldn't let it ruin my holiday I would drop some pain killers and antibiotics so we could get on with it. It's like these people who claim for minor scratches to cars, it gets scratched as it gets older, if you have a good service plan they will polish it out at the next service. Insurance should be for the Big Bang issues not small things.

@corcaithecat I wouldn't class a dog bite as a serious injury it's a tissue wound and a hazard of having a dog. DS has one off a dog which was his best friend from being a baby, but he fell on top of him and he scratched him badly. Do you know what when that dog died we had tears for months and he still misses him today. I had a cat growing up that used to love my hair but often got an ear in the process, still miss the cat despite having a few scars

But as the smiths are insured it would only effect their premiums from what I understand,

I'm in the US and in the state I live in (insurance laws are enacted state by state) if a claim is filed for a dog bite and it's decided you have a 'dangerous dog' (and in this case I can guarantee the insurance company will say the dog was dangerous), not only will your homeowner's premiums skyrocket enormously, but chances are your policy will be refused renewal. And some of the main questions you're asked when you apply for homeowner's insurance are whether you own a pet, what breed, and has it ever bitten. Also if you've ever had a policy cancelled/refused renewal and why.

Even though the dog has been pts, if the Smith's company refuses renewal, they still may have a hard time finding a new insurer or they're going to pay a jacked up premium because they'd be considered a 'risk'. Insurance companies only want to insure people who've never filed a claim and whom they think will never be likely to file a claim and will do anything to avoid having a 'risky' policy holder.

Lastly, if they have a mortgage and can't get insurance on their own, their mortgage company will get 'high risk' insurance on their behalf and those rates are absolutely astronomical!

I'm not saying OP's mum shouldn't continue her claim. Just giving the reasons why the Smiths have hit the roof.

Medical expenses aside, I believe you can only be awarded up to £250 for loss of enjoyment of a holiday. Is this a claim on travel insurance? Because if it is, she'll not get anything for future expenses either, for that she'll have to sue.

You're obviously one of THOSE type of dog owners that refuses to act responsibly around pet ownership. 🤦🏻‍♀️

The mum (a woman in her 80’s), had serious bite injuries that needed hospital treatment and ongoing medical care, not remotely comparable to a scratch.

They knew the dog was dangerous as it had previously seriously injured a child, yet they chose to ignore the risk that it could harm someone else. Having a claim made against their insurance cover is a minor inconvenience to them, nothing more.

To be honest, they deserve to be prosecuted for criminal negligence for their stupidity.

@corcaithecat the animals in this house are very well taken care of thank you very much, we are very responsible owners. But they live here, so enter at your own risk p.s the dogs are soft as muck but the rabbit is liable to pounce if you touch any electric cables! We aren't a soft household in general, DH is currently walking round with a cut that likely needs stitching after "cleaning" the conservatory. It will be a win if he as much as sticks some steristrips on it! If it doesn't require surgery in this house it's a minor injury.

This claim is going to have massive financial implications on a family member for some upset and a flesh wound. I know I would prioritise a relationship over some cash for a wound.

@Grumpybutfunny

I know I would prioritise a relationship over some cash for a wound.

It’s not a minor feckin’ wound. 🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️

It’s a serious injury more akin to a broken leg, especially for someone in their 80’s.

The daughter should be prioritising the relationship with her aging mother over her incredibly stupid in-laws who knowingly and recklessly kept an out of control dog.

If I was the OP, I’d be contacting the local police and asking why the owners weren’t prosecuted for the previous injury their dog caused? If it had been taken seriously at the time, there shouldn’t have been the opportunity for a repeat performance.

I think your sister is behaving disgracefully and should be ashamed of herself.

Your poor mum, not only badly injured by a dog who had previously caused damage, her holiday ruined, lots of treatment required (80 year old’s do not heal in the same manner as younger people), but her own daughter is in essence defending what has happened.

When making a claim, it is quite normal for solicitors to get involved. Does your sister really expect he/your mother do put up and shut up and pay out for any current or future expenses, or navigate the legal process in another country? Would she be so angry and blame her mother if the injuries had been fatal?

My heart goes out to your Mum, who has been put in this position through no fault of her own.

@corcaithecat so you would rather they had another animal PTS than someone get a bite? This isn't a dog out rooming the streets carrying out a random attack, it is a dog in a home and I very much doubt some action wasn't involved on the part of the other such as moving a chair or standing on said dog. It isn't even an attack it's a single bite which speaks for it a temperament. They also fail to mention why or where the dog was kept many farm dogs will attack if provoked. Should it be kept as a family pet no it shouldn't as it has a history however as an adult household they should be able to make the decision to keep it and anyone who wants to be around it does so at their own risk.

Even a broken leg is largely a minor injury!

She has said she will reimburse the medical expenses if the claim was successful.

How will she even be able to claim for medical expenses given that the in-laws have paid the medical expenses directly?
Did she claim for the cruise in her travel insurance?
If she wanted money for taxis & bandages (although I’m not understanding why these weren’t ordered on prescription, they usually are if a patient needs dressings so often) she could have asked them for this money directly.

the cost of bandages and taxis seems a really trifling amount to lose a daughter over tbh, although the in-laws and your sister are behaving appalling and my sympathy lies with your DM. It must have been a horrible attack to go through.

Yes of course the dog should have been euthanised after the first time it seriously bit someone. 🤷🏻‍♀️

The fact it bit someone else afterwards proves that it was a dangerous out of control dog.

I have a large breed dog (Newfoundland) and if he was out of control and bit someone, I wouldn't hesitate to have him destroyed. Luckily, he is well trained and very gentle but I still walk him on a lead when out as other people/dogs might feel afraid of him due to his size.

When we have visitors, he's put in the utility room or outside unless it's someone we know who enjoys his company.

@corcaithecat you would put a dog to sleep over one bite and lock him in a utility if people come over. I'm sorry but it's you not treating him properly your house is his home, if people can't deal with him then they are the ones that need locking in a room. Preferably locking outside!! We have become a society of softies if we think a minor injury is reason to destroy another animal, we don't even put murderers to death in this country.

I do think homes with dogs that have a bite history should be forced to display signage and they should be muzzled in public. They shouldn't be kept in houses with children but they shouldn't be put to death unless they show aggression and potential for sustained attacks, single bites like the OP describes aren't attacks they are fear on the part of the dog which has been panicked or attacked (in its eyes). Would you put a dog to death that has bitten a vet for example?

It will make little difference if she pulls out now - insurance are aware whether a claim is made or not. And as the fire brigade had to get involved to put the dog to sleep then it will presumably have been reported to the relevant authorities anyway.

My guess is the dog is not properly insured - possibly because they did not declare the first bite.

Once these things go to the insurance company they will involve solicitors etc., I don't think that the claimant has much control. If your mother wants to be reimbursed for her out of pocket expenses and isn't bothered about 'pain and suffering' compensation then the dog's owner should be willing to cover those expenses without continuing with solicitors. Sounds to me that they want to wash their hands of any responsibility though.

It looks like this could be the US? Most home insurance cover dogs, but restrictions for coverage on the more dangerous breeds is common. It’s highly likely the home insurance would not cover the claim

Hi op, how did your Mum get on?