Discouraging Law Enforcement from shooting dogs, by taking out an Animal Mortality Insurance policy

Most life insurance policies won't pay out if you die during a crime, if your shot robbing a bank then you don't get paid.

The cops would just say the animal was attacking a police officer and thats usually a felony I believe so they would get out of it.

originally posted by: mwood
Most life insurance policies won't pay out if you die during a crime, if your shot robbing a bank then you don't get paid.

The cops would just say the animal was attacking a police officer and thats usually a felony I believe so they would get out of it.

Thats certainly a relevant idea to ponder. But the cops don't usually say that there were any "code violations" when the dogs were shot, just that they felt "threatened". The LEO's will certainly get tangled up in the "unlawful seizure" issue, which would put the possible "code violations", that got the dog shot in the first place, into question.

Here is an article from the LEO's perspective. Seems they have taken the "unlawful seizure" rulings, linked to the wrongful shooting of civilian dogs to heart. After all we are just "suspects" to them:

m.lawofficer.com...

I can't find any contract language on "Animal & Livestock Mortality" insurance policies anywhere on the web, just the brokers and providers, application process. So we I can't confirm if "wrongful LEO shootings" would be covered or not.

a reply to: boohoo

Can all these insurance products be purchased under one company in Australia?

Not sure about dog biting a human and if its available or part of some the policies offered.

All I have come across is what my vet has offered and that was a policy that the actual veterinary clinic offered and it gave discounts on treatment if necessary and free yearly checks, medications would still be at full price but the services offered by the vet would be discounted if not free in some cases.

Other forms of insurance come from companies that can cover anything from your home to your pet.

Not sure what is covered but I would assume you could get covered for just for about everything with your pet as long as you are willing to fork out the cash.

A wrongful death by police policy like I said is non heard of here in Australia based on my limited view.

Sorry I couldn't really answer as definitive as I would have liked, but will try and have a look into it in the next few days and might bring something more to the table.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
A wrongful death by police policy like I said is non heard of here in Australia based on my limited view.

The policy need not specifically say "wrongful death by police", just "shooting accidents, not committed by owner". One of the insurance brokers webpage I linked to earlier, says just that under their "Animal & Livestock Mortality" policies, "shooting accidents, not committed by owner".

originally posted by: boohoo

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
A wrongful death by police policy like I said is non heard of here in Australia based on my limited view.

The policy need not specifically say "wrongful death by police", just "shooting accidents, not committed by owner". One of the insurance brokers webpage I linked to earlier, says just that under their "Animal & Livestock Mortality" policies, "shooting accidents, not committed by owner".

Wouldn't happen here since they took all the guns after the Port Arthur massacre.

So a shooting accident is very unlikely and would happen more so if it did on farmland or in the country side where people have large property and other animals(livestock) to protect on their property and would have licensed firearms.

So the only others that would have fire arms are criminals.

Now a death by shooting policy would work well if its money the owner is after when their pet is shot by a burglar.

If the criminal isn't caught for me the money wouldn't matter.

But if its a cop then what you are suggesting that if more and more get the cover that shooting of dogs would start to drop or cops would be more vigilant with their actions if Insurance companies started suing the police departments to cover the payment the insurance company needs to make to the one making the claim.

But a good point pointed out by another poster Augustus I think it was that where most of these shootings happen are in low income areas and is pet insurance a service those in low income areas can afford.

Its a tough issue and so widespread over the states but there are no simple solutions.

I mean if one must really use their tinfoil hat thinking insurance companies would really be the only ones to benefit.

I would have it that way if a few dogs could be saved by not having a cop enter someones premises and shoot first because insurance companies are getting involved but all it really does if one must look at the big picture is make money for insurance companies. An individual here and there might not have their dog shot and I think its worth it but am conflicted as insurance companies are just doing as much damage by the way they operate as any other money hungry organization based on profit margins.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
But if its a cop then what you are suggesting that if more and more get the cover that shooting of dogs would start to drop or cops would be more vigilant with their actions if Insurance companies started suing the police departments to cover the payment the insurance company needs to make to the one making the claim.

Yes, Yes, Yes, this!

I am working off the assumption that the "dog shooting policies" within police departments are not going to change in any meaningful way. So, the downside is the need to throw "good" money at the "bad" insurance companies to foster overall policy change. Also, I do disagree that few dogs being shot were owned by the wealthy or middle class. I think dogs with owners from all class backgrounds have been shot and a lot of more of them near the upper middle upper class than we can guess (wrong address on warrant or random welfare check).

My gut says, that It will only take a few victim middle class dog owners, carrying the "Animal Mortality" insurance, filing a claim of wrongful death, to get a broad policy change in place. The main reason being that the individual cops insurance will be contacted by the "Animal Mortality" insurance company and the departments insurance will also be contacted by the "Animal Mortality" insurance company. After that arbitration, someone or the organization itself could have their premiums to be insured increased. I highly doubt many officers imagine such a scenario, when shooting someone or damaging something because most "people" and/or "things" are not insured individually in that manner (typically just home, renters or car insurance). Like I said earlier a wrongful death of a rich CEO carrying an Executive Life Insurance Policy would likely bankrupt an LEO department or local jurisdiction. Encountering an "insured dog" would likely take any department by surprise, post shooting, when the insurance claim comes in. They will not be expecting it.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
However if its covered in pet insurance which all policies I have come across covers for surgery if your pet has an accident.

I completely get this premise, however it does nothing to support the Original Poster's point that the cops would somehow be paying the price.

The pet owner would be bearing the burden of the insurance and even if the dog was wearing a sandwich board that said, "valuable insured pet", it still would not make the cops pay a penny if they flat blasted it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The pet owner would be bearing the burden of the insurance and even if the dog was wearing a sandwich board that said, "valuable insured pet", it still would not make the cops pay a penny if they flat blasted it.

Either you really don't get the overall concept or you are dissenting on purpose, to confuse the premise.

I will post two links to articles covering the very topic of Professional Liability Insurance, being directed towards LEO's. One is a stand alone article and the other is a forum discussion.

REMEMBER Professional Liability Insurance IS NOT PAID FOR BY THE DEPARTMENT, its paid for by the individual officer "just in case" they need additional coverage with legal fees, damages, etc. It is a SEPARATE policy from the insurance that the department carries. Here are some items being covered that seem to signal that under the right circumstances the offending officers Home Owners insurance and/or Professional Liability Insurance could be affected by a civil lawsuit or opposing insurance policy claim:

-Despite having insurance to cover law enforcement action, Chris and his family have had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket to cover all of his expenses. He’s had to hire five separate lawyers to handle the wide variety of issues resulting from the incident. In addition to his criminal charges, the deceased’s family brought a civil suit against him for wrongful death, his insurance company sued him for filing a claim on his policy

-Chris had professional liability insurance and was covered under his renter’s insurance for negligence/wrongful death, and they are actually costing him more money. When the civil suit was brought against Chris for wrongful death, he filed a claim under his renter’s insurance policy to cover the expense of hiring a civil attorney.

-The insurance company didn’t want to pay, so they turned around and sued Chris, and he had to hire yet another attorney to fight his own insurance company!

www.deedysupport.com...

Now in this case it was a person that got killed, HOWEVER the process of filing suit against the individual officer and the affect on their insurance premium is the same with damaged insured property. DO NOT FORGET the goal is to render the offending officer UNINSURABLE, if at all possible, not to be compensated for the loss of the pet.

NOW FOR THE SECOND PART, LEO's can be held personally liable in any Title 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit, which includes "unreasonable seizure" (i.e. shooting someones secured pet dog, without a warrant or cause to enter a private property).

Here is an old thread stating that LEO's cannot even purchase Professional Liability Insurance anymore.

forums.officer.com...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
And none of that comes from the officer.

To recap, since LEO's can be held personally accountable for a Title 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit, a dog getting shot by an LEO can be deemed an "unreasonable seizure", so when a dog "insured for a named dollar value" is shot, it can trigger an insurance claim to be made against the individual officers personal insurance policies (not necessarily the department), last but not least, being personally liable could possibly render the shooting officer uninsurable OR at minimum end up with an increased insurance premium, due to claims being filed by any side.

-GOT IT, YET!

originally posted by: boohoo
Either you really don't get the overall concept or you are dissenting on purpose, to confuse the premise.

The only confusion is on your part where you think that your suggestions is a panacea for pets being shot by police.

I will post two links to articles covering the very topic of Professional Liability Insurance being, directed towards LEO's. One is a stand alone article and the other is a forum discussion.

These are irrelevant as they are optional. They are an optional policy taken by the officer. I ask you, what officer is going to pay for a policy out of their own pocket in case they shoot your pet?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
These are irrelevant as they are optional. They are an optional policy taken by the officer. I ask you, what officer is going to pay for a policy out of their own pocket in case they shoot your pet?

Still having trouble with reading comprehension, I see. If a dog is shot and deemed an "unreasonable seizure" the officer is PERSONALLY LIABLE. He will need to pay for his own attorney costs out of pocket. If you had read the articles you would know that in such a situation most LEO's without the financial means to hire an attorney, will file a claim with their home owners insurance, renters insurance or professional liability insurance. The point is to get them to pay for some of these legal expenses out of pocket, the department will not cover 100% of legal costs if the shooting is deemed an "unreasonable seizure". Also, an insurance claim on thier part means higher premium or cancellation of the policy and possibly being rendered uninsurable.

Having an insured animal with a dollar value attached, INCREASES the chances of the above chain of events unfolding. The same would also happen if a human was shot, whom was covered by an Executive/Key Man Life Insurance Policy (which to date I cannot confirm EVER happening). For example in 2012 a loose dog, running at large, in Des Moines, was shot and killed by police, they settled out of court for $51,000 in damages:

seattletimes.com...

I'm not even talking about the hypothetical insured dog owner being in violation of local codes & ordinances. I'm talking about someone whom is in full compliance of the law, taking out an additional insurance policy to established a DOLLAR VALUE On the pet. When lawsuit time comes, the payout will be far more then $51,000, especially if no codes or ordinances were violated AND the event was deemed an "unreasonable seizure". So yes, if someone has the means, paying a few bucks a month to set a dollar value on a pet is likely a good idea under certain circumstances.

All it takes is one poorly executed "LEO welfare check", resulting in the death of a dog, with an insured value of $10,000 and having been the cornerstone of a dog breeding program, that provided the sole income for the owner. If something like this EVER went to trial and the cop lost, money would be coming out of his own pocket and you can bet the farm, that the "typical" lethal engagement rules would change for dogs. Same thing applies to an insured human, insured cow or insured horse, take your pick.

originally posted by: boohoo
Still having trouble with reading comprehension, I see. If a dog is shot and deemed an "unreasonable seizure" the officer is PERSONALLY LIABLE.

Still having trouble with common sense civil law I see. The only way that occurs if pets are no longer deemed 'property' by result of having their status changed. The fact that you have them insured guarantees nothing except an insurance premium.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The fact that you have them insured guarantees nothing except an insurance premium.

BTW, I NEVER said "guarantee", I said having an insured animal with a dollar value attached, INCREASES the chances of the above chain of events unfolding. Having insurance induces legal action, at times.

I guess you haven't been involved in many of these kinds of things personally. I've done this rodeo with Homeowners insurance before for a multitude of reasons. Yes, the civil suit is separate from being found guilty of "unlawful seizure", but you keep trying to pretend that one does not influence the outcome of the other, in a suit, which it does.

Yet another article, to loosen the cobwebs from your brain:

blogs.findlaw.com...

originally posted by: boohoo
BTW, I NEVER said "guarantee", I said having an insured animal with a dollar value attached, INCREASES the chances of the above chain of events unfolding. Having insurance induces legal action, at times.

The operative words being, 'at times', which would be few and far between.

I guess you haven't been involved in many of these kinds of things personally. I've done this rodeo with Homeowners insurance before for a multitude of reasons. Yes, the civil suit is separate from being found guilty of "unlawful seizure", but you keep trying to pretend that one does not influence the outcome of the other, in a suit, which it does.

And neither have you, otherwise you would not be here soliciting specifics.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
And neither have you, otherwise you would not be here soliciting specifics.

Boy, you sure do need a lot of corrections. You are quite a handful to babysit.

I have experience with "Homeowners" insurance claims NOT, "Animal and Livestcok Mortality Insurance" claims. I am "soliciting specifics" about "Animal and Livestock Mortality" insurance claims.

Here is an article stating that "lawsuits brought by police should be bumped back to the municipalities. But the insurers, not the municipalities themselves, oversee settlements for many towns. And some of the insurers don’t track the costs of the cases at all. Neither does the state comptrollers office"

www.wnyc.org...

I'm definitely on the right track here, with the concept of instigating insurance company vs insurance company.

-GOT IT, YET! GEEZE!!!

originally posted by: boohoo
Boy, you sure do need a lot of corrections. You are quite a handful to babysit.

I have experience with "Homeowners" insurance claims NOT, "Animal and Livestcok Mortality Insurance" claims. I am "soliciting specifics" about "Animal and Livestock Mortality" insurance claims.

Which is what I said. If you actually took the time to read and comprehend what I wrote this would have been obvious. You blather on about how the police will be paying this but they will not, despite your 'experience' with homeowner's insurance.

Here is an article stating that "lawsuits brought by police should be bumped back to the municipalities. But the insurers, not the municipalities themselves, oversee settlements for many towns. And some of the insurers don’t track the costs of the cases at all. Neither does the state comptrollers office"

www.wnyc.org...

I'm definitely on the right track here, with the concept of instigating insurance company vs insurance company.

As I just mentioned, you need to read. The title of the article:

Good Cop, Bad Cop: How Infighting Is Costing New Jersey Taxpayers

-GOT IT, YET! GEEZE!!!

Tell us again how this does not cost the taxpayer?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Tell us again how this does not cost the taxpayer?

You are trying really hard to divide people on the simple issue of how to "Discourage Law Enforcement from shooting dogs". Regardless of the taxpayer or private insurance issue, the point is to FORCE departments to adjust dog shooting polices based on an unknown financial factor.

###SNIPPED###

Again, in my outlined strategy the "unknown factor" which can be a catalyst to changing policy, is the possibility of ANY DOG having a high reimbursement value, that the local government, department or individual officer will be responsible to pay for, in case of death of the animal. The only way to establish that dollar value, legally, is to insure the dog as a high value asset. A perfect one-to-one example is an expensive car being damaged by LEO's during an investigation or stop. An LEO is far more likely to bash up an old Honda Civic than they are a Bentley or a Porsche. Because they know the likelihood of legal action by the, less well to do, Honda owner are slim. If LEO's find out that even as few as 1 in 20 dogs could have an insured valued of $10,000, you can bet your house that fatal shooting will reduce. Here is a sample story, where a cop had a fender bender with e $350,000+ car and in the end the city had to pay $44,000 to fix the car.
www.carbuzz.com...

I GUARANTEE THAT THIS PARTICULAR POLICE DEPARTMENT, TODAY, HAS AN INTERNAL POLICY IN PLACE, TO DETER EXPENSIVE CARS FROM BEING DAMAGED BY THEIR OFFICERS.

The same can be true of dogs if people start taking out Mortality insurance on their dogs in large numbers. The LAW isn't going to change, so the financial aspects of negligence have to change instead, to initiate internal policy changes, withing LEO departments.

I want police chief's & sheriffs saying the following to their officers:

"Don't even think of shooting another dog while employed here, the last one killed, was valued at $10,000 and it costed a department $1 million in damages, the offending officer had to pay $100,000 out of pocket, in legal fees and as a result, can no longer get a homeowners insurance policy"

a reply to: boohoo

Super good thinking, (use their own mechanism against them) take a racket that's supposed to keep us nickel and dimed to death (raising money costs money). So we never have the cash upfront from the start...super high premiums?

Would I invest in it?

I'd rather have a website post faces and places that would be most unpleasant for offending officers, but I'm emotional about my 'pets'...

originally posted by: boohoo
You are trying really hard to divide people on the simple issue of how to "Discourage Law Enforcement from shooting dogs". Regardless of the taxpayer or private insurance issue, the point is to FORCE departments to adjust dog shooting polices based on an unknown financial factor.

Let me ask you a really simple question:

Police departments have insurance to cover wrongful shootings, has that stopped them from shooting people?

Try to answer without resorting to your childish ad hominems.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Let me ask you a really simple question:

Police departments have insurance to cover wrongful shootings, has that stopped them from shooting people?

Try to answer without resorting to your childish ad hominems.

Right back at you, when was the last time a police department shot and killed someone covered by a $1 million+ Key Person/Executive Insurance policy? None that I know of, but there would certainly be financial consequences for doing such, should it ever occur in the near future.

I get it, you're possibly an LEO and at this point you are doing your best to obstruficate the overall concept.

Assuming this is a correct assessment of who you are, I'm not the least bit surprised by your persistence. The concept is VERY straight forward, so I'll explain again:

If a dog has a set insured value, of say $10,000, and is then shot by police on private property, the owner would then file a claim against their Animal Mortality Insurance policy, which they had previously taken out on the animal. So, as with all insurance companies, they will then subrogate the damages from the responsible party.

Subrogation WILL CERTAINLY HAPPEN, you can count on it, even against an LEO or their department.

So AugustusMasonicus, whom would the responsible party be in this case, since there is no perp or other responsible third party? The claim would be legitimate and covered, so somebody is going to pay it. If we were all to believe you, the insurance company, in this case, is simply going to eat the $10,000 and not follow through on subrogation because its an LEO.

I think not, they are going to attempt to subrogate the damages from another insurance company. The only questionable part is, if it will be the departments insurance or the individual cops policy (home owners etc).

NO INSURANCE COMPANY ON EARTH is going to eat the cost of payout, while forgoing the subrogation process.

AGAIN, THE EXACT SAME SCENARIO WOULD APPLY TO A HUMAN, wrongfully shot by police without a liable third party present, whom was covered by a Key Person Insurance Policy:

www.nationwide.com...

There are two additional issues at work here, which the insurance company will CERTAINLY look into during subrogation, in regard to an INSURED animal shot on private property by LEO's. The first is "unreasonable seizure" and the second is "inverse condemnation".

I want police chief's & sheriffs saying the following to their officers:

"Don't even think of shooting another dog while employed here, the last one killed, was valued at $10,000 and it cost a department $1 million in damages, the offending officer had to pay $100,000 out of pocket, in legal fees and as a result, can no longer get a homeowners insurance policy"