It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: boohoo
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.


Why would that matter as a wrongful death suit, if that were the case, would be filed by the family which would most likely generate a higher monetary award than the policy? Additionally, the monetary award is paid by the department and municipality, i.e. the taxpayer. The insurance payout would be from the deceased's own payments, other insurance policy holder's payments and the insurance company's own investments.

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


Nope, industrial sales. Either way it is irrelevant.

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.


Ah, no. Subrogation applies if you claim an insurance payout and then go after the department or municipality (tortfeasor) where the offending officer is employed and subsequently receive a monetary judgment. If this judgment exceeds the insurance payout the insurance company will use subrogation to collect the $10,000 back from you since their rationale is that you have been fairly compensated by the judgment and to receive additional payment from them would be double dipping.

They could also sue the tortfeasor for the payout but frankly I do not see how a $10,000 insurance payment is a deterrence when civil suit claims for wrongful death by a police officer results in a payout orders of magnitude greater.


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


Who cares? Again, do you think a $10,000 policy, that they are not even aware of, is going to prevent them from shooting your dog when insurance payouts in the millions have not prevented them from shooting humans? Additionally, as in the case of civil judgments when a human is shot, the payout in damages comes from the department (taxpayers) insurance.

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.


No, the department (taxpayers) are going to eat it since it is easier to make that $10,000 payment back to the insurance company than challenge it in court. Either way it does nothing to alter the behavior of police officers with 'itchy trigger fingers' either gunning down humans or animals. All you have done is marginally penalize bad behavior instead of finding a way to encourage good behavior.

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).


What planet do you live on? Do you honestly think someone's homeowner's policy is going to cover their municipal occupation? That is why municipalities carry such insurance.

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


Either way when the dust clears the taxpayer is the one footing the bill if the department is sued by an insurance carrier to recoup damages.

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"


Again, since you did not answer my questions, replace 'dog' with 'human' in the above paragraph and tell me if civil damage suits have curtailed wrongful death shootings of humans by police?




posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Another sorty that should prompt us all to take action and insure our pets under "Animal Mortality Insurance":

www.spokesman.com...

Protests won't make any difference, legislators can't even disband some police departments. So it seems, even changing laws is not enough in some cases, to make LEO's accountable for unconstitutional actions.

Only MONEY, namely insurance coverage, can solve this problem.

American Buffalo, Cows and Crocodiles kill more people per year, than domestic dogs, when tracked as individual species; 4 times as many when combined.

BUT...a loose horse running down 11th Avenue, in Manhattan, is not dangerous enough to warrant it being shot?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Does anyone know what the difference is between a pet dog and a carriage horse?

The carriage horse is an "insured asset" and the police WILL have to pay the owner of a horse shot negligently, due to something called "subrogation".

In contrast to dogs, you don't see many horses, cows, hogs or other livestock getting shot very often by law enforcement. I think the main 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.

To summarize my point, it will only take a few victim "insured dog" owners, whom were carrying "Animal Mortality" insurance specifically, with multiple claims of wrongful death filed with a single company, to get a broad nationwide policy change in place in LEO departments.

How many "insured dogs" shot by police, per year, do you think the insurance companies would tolerate, before they begin to put the screws into the legislators and LEO's?

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,the victims insurance 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. No insurance company is going to eat the $10,000 and not follow through on subrogation, simply because its an LEO t fault. They are certainly going to attempt to subrogate the damages from another insurance company. The only questionable part is, if it will be the departments insurance and/or the individual cops policy (home owners etc) that will pay.

Note, 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, whom was covered by a "Key Person" Insurance Policy, wrongfully shot by police, without a liable third-party present.

In the subrogation process, 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 process, the individual cop and/or the police organization itself would likely have their insurance premiums increased. Its highly doubtful many officers imagine such a scenario, when shooting someone, a pet or damaging property, because most "people" and/or "things" are not insured individually in that manner (typically just home, renters or car insurance). For example, 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 many departments by surprise, post shooting, when the insurance claim comes in.

LEO's and their departments will ABSOLUTELY not be expecting it.

Also, 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 always the department). Being personally liable, in an instance like this, could conceivably render the shooting officer uninsurable, OR at minimum, result with an increased personal insurance premium, due to claims being filed by any side.

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/LEO. The purpose is to make the insurance company's get involved on the legal side, once an "insured 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, across the country, shot by police, also happened to be covered by "Animal & Livestock Mortality" Policies. The insurance companies would likely begin to draw up real data, about police shooting dogs, to strengthen their cases.

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, for a moment, if those dogs had been insured individually, as well, with a specific dollar value and pay out schedule 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 an "insured dog", due to irrational fear, can't be good for continued institutional public policies that encourage officers to shoot civilian owned dogs on a whim. Imagine a scenario where a cop whom shoots dogs negligently becomes both uninsured individually and uninsurable departmentally.

Dog owners, at this point, should be teaching each other HOW to cause police departments additional logistical and paperwork headaches. I think the issue at this point, is NOT simply "awareness", people know this kind of unlawful shooting of pets is going on. "Activists groups" need to REFOCUS and target potential loopholes in police policy, then HIGHLIGHT them for the public to us AND abuse.
edit on 5-11-2014 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: boohoo

Shouldn't your insurance policy be the 2nd amendment? If they can shoot your dog "just because" you should be able to shoot them. If you were to accidentally kick a K-9 you'd be charged with "assaulting an officer." Hell, they might beat you to death for accidentally kicking one. Sounds logical you should have the same right to protect your dog. Simple transitive property of equality in action here.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: WCmutant
a reply to: boohoo

Shouldn't your insurance policy be the 2nd amendment? If they can shoot your dog "just because" you should be able to shoot them. If you were to accidentally kick a K-9 you'd be charged with "assaulting an officer." Hell, they might beat you to death for accidentally kicking one. Sounds logical you should have the same right to protect your dog. Simple transitive property of equality in action here.


I agree with you, but that is not the reality of the situation. My "insurance" strategy is the only thing law abiding citizens have left to fight with, WITHOUT taking up arms. We're down to two choices at this point, but EVERYONE seems to think there are "other" options besides the two, that you and I have outlined.




top topics
 
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join