Pitbull dogs are dangerous since they have killed more humans than all other breeds combined. Dogs may be nice when the owner (alpha male) is there,
but as soon as they are absent, the dogs convert to an aggressive/protective mode.
American Buffalo, Cows and Crocodiles kill more people per year, than domestic dogs, when tracked as individual species; 4 times as many when
BUT...a loose horse running down 11th Avenue in Manhattan is not dangerous enough to warrant it being shot?
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 shot horse, 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 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.
I started a topic about this on ATS, to much controversy:
Discouraging Law Enforcement from shooting dogs, by taking out an Animal Mortality
To summarize my point, it will only take a few victim "insured dog" owners, whom were carrying "Animal Mortality" insurance, and filing a claim of
wrongful death, to get a broad policy change in place.
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
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. No insurance company is going to eat the $10,000 and
not follow through on subrogation simply because its an LEO. 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 or the individual cops policy (home owners etc).
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 arbitration process, the individual cop and/or the police organization
itself could have their premiums to be insured increased. Its highly doubtful many officers imagine such a scenario, when shooting someone 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.
They 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 necessarily the department). Being personally liable could possibly render the shooting officer uninsurable OR at
minimum end up 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. 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 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 an "insured 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 a scenario where a cop whom shoots dogs negligently becomes both uninsured individually and
edit on 22-10-2014 by boohoo because: (no reason given)