Imagine for a second that one-third of these 92 dogs had been insured under an "Animal Mortality" policy, what do you think the insurance companies,
on both sides, would be doing to this Police department, after filling 30 plus claims, even for nominal amounts?
Protests won't make any difference and in some cities legislators can't even disband the local 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
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 horse shot negligently, due to something called
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 owners, with "insured dog", whom were carrying "Animal Mortality" insurance specifically on
the shot animal. In a situation like that with real money on the line, it likely wouldn't take many 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
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 adjuster
shows up, straight from an insurance company.
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 has the possibility of triggering 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. THIS SHOULD BE THE GOAL, when taking out an "Animal Mortality" insurance policy on a dog, not to get "reimbursed", but rather to render
the individual shooter uninsurable, or at the very least, with unpayable premiums, post claim.
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. We want adjusters getting involved in these shooting claims, the sooner the better. 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. Imagine if the community in Buffalo had collectively and simultaneously taken out such polices on the dogs in a preemptive manner, would we be
seeing TRUE policy change now? I'd bet my house we would.
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. "Activists
groups" need to REFOCUS and target potential loopholes in police policy, then HIGHLIGHT them for the public to us AND abuse.
Here is my original thread on the topic:
Discouraging Law Enforcement from shooting dogs, by taking out an Animal Mortality