To the mods: I tried to post this to the "posse comitatus" forum, but could not. Can anyone move it there?
Since we all know this kind of "accidental shooting of pet dogs" seems to be pretty common today with Law Enforcement and we know that the officers
are only going to get a "slap on the wrist", due to the dogs being considered low value "property", what can we do if the criminal courts are going to
ignore these kinds of events? Could people perhaps get insurance companies to lobby on their behalf, indirectly, by "insuring their dogs" like
ranchers do with livestock?
I for example, have sport dogs that I have spent a lot of money and time training, with officially recorded titles and such (no breeding). Could
people like me start insuring their dogs as "livestock" per say, with an insured valuation? Not to necessarily recover the cost of the dog, if killed,
BUT rather to get the insurance companies to fight on my behalf after having to file a claim.
Here's what I mean, say dog owners start collectively taking out "Animal Mortality Insurance" on their pet dogs in large numbers, like an AKC breed
group for example (10,000+ people sometimes per breed club, millions AKC wide), using an insurance provider like Hartford, under their livestock
insurance policies(dogs can be added to such policies, usually police or working dogs).
How many dogs shot by police, per year, do you think the insurance companies would tolerate, before they begin to put the screws into the
You don't see many horses, cows, hogs or other livestock getting shot very often by law enforcement. I think the reason why, is because they are an
established commodity with an insured value. If that same kind of insuring practice was done on dogs in larger numbers, I believe the "accidental
shooting of pet dogs" by law enforcement will also decline.
What if ALL the people whom had dogs shot by police also had taken out Mortality Insurance policy on their dogs with Hartford, even for a nominal
payout amount. Wouldn't it then be pretty much make a slam dunk civil case against the department because the dogs were an insured asset and not just
a pet? Now imagine if just 10% of the dogs that have been shot by police also had such a a policy and insured value, the actuaries would be going
I've been wondering about how civil law would handle such a situation, especially when the livestock is carried under an Animal & Livestock Mortality
Insurance Policy. I've recently posted this idea to a previous thread on ATS, about civilian owned dogs being shot by police, with no warrant nor
permission to enter the property:
In that thread, I pondered a hypothetical situation occurring with livestock getting shot by Law Enforcement, in contrast to dogs. Seems I was correct
and such a thing has occurred, which may have precedence in the USA courts (yes, I know this particular video is of Canada Police). Here is a link to
that ATS thread which I also posted to:
Now to clarify further, the purpose in taking out an Animal & Livestock Mortality policy on a dog, is not to get a large payout from the insurance
company after the dogs death, by cop. The purpose is to make the insurance company get involved on the legal side, once a dog is killed in a negligent
manner by an LEO. The legal effect against Law Enforcement would be even greater, if an increasing number dogs shot by police also happened to be
covered by Animal & Livestock Mortality Policies. The insurance companies would likely draw up real data, about police shooting dogs, to strengthen
Since the insurance company would have to pay out the claim, for a dogs death by cop, do they want to pay it, or would they rather the negligent
police department pay the claim instead? If there was an insured horse and a cop shot it for feeling threatened you better believe the insurance
companies would spend the money in court fees, to get the department to pay up. Once the case is settled, I also guarantee the LEO department, on the
losing end, would also make a long standing public policy against shooting insured horses (some horses can be insured for MILLIONS of dollars BTW).
Also we don't know what kind of precedents are out there on the legal books, for animals covered under Animal & Livestock Mortality Insurance. Which,
at this point, the insurance companies have certainly fought and paid for through legal expenses, over the course of many decades. Law Enforcement
certainly doesn't know ANY of these laws and could end up unpleasantly surprised in a court room, after a wrongful dog shooting which was covered
under an Animal & Livestock Mortality insurance policy.
As I stated, if the number of dog owners carrying Animal & Livestock Mortality increases, the chances of a dog being shot by police, that is also
carrying such insurance also increases. Since we know the individual police officers will not be prosecuted and that the laws will not change, the
only solution is to make insurance companies take up the fight for us, based SOLELY on the fact that the insurance company doesn't want to be paying
out money every time a scared cop shots a non-threatening dog, under questionable circumstances. Just like my horse example above, if cops shoot
enough insured dogs in a negligent manner, the insurance companies are going to be making it a big headache for any department that lets it officers
do so willy-nilly.
To my knowledge, there have been no dogs shot that were carrying Animal & Livestock Mortality Insurance. However, there have been more than a few
breeding show dogs shot by law enforcement and in those cases the Police departments settled for much more then the typical $300, plus immediate
medical expenses. Imagine if those dogs had been insured as well, with a specific dollar value, with a pay out amount on the policy. The damages
found in court would likely have been much higher at the end of the day. Also remember, the insurance covering the individual officer and the
departments insurers will also be involved in the legal discussion about payout. Three insurance companies talking about a claim, involving a
negligent cop whom shot a dog due to irrational fear, can't be good for institutional public policies that encourage officers to shoot civilian owned
dogs on a whim. Imagine the possibility of a cop whom shoots dogs negligently becoming uninsured individually and uninsurable departmentally.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the insurance angle? Does anyone here have experience with livestock mortality insurance? Is it possible to have a
custom policy written up, that only covers accidental death by Law Enforcement personnel? How would an underwriter respond to such a request? My guess
is that such an event would be considered very rare, with low risk to the insurer. So, would that mean a person could get low premium coverage, on a
dog, with an established insured value, based on Animal & Livestock Mortality Insurance standards? The AKC already works with Hartford providing Dog
Club insurance, I'd imagine they would be interested in expanding their markets that increase their overall revenue.
edit on 30-6-2014 by
boohoo because: (no reason given)