Forensic Vet Report

WTFH

wealdroam wrote: »

I think someone earlier in this thread might have suggested you seek legal advice.

Not just one person, and not just in this thread!

1jim

To be fair it's probably right, looking at this objectively,

Your dog needed surgery, you had that cost to pay regardless of outcome. All surgery carries risk and may not resolve any issues. The fact that you feel your dog was discharged too early would not negate the original cost of the surgery. So would therefore be payable?

The direct financial cost to you from the death of your dog was the costs directly incurred due to his death, therefore only these direct costs would be recoverable

You have said previously that you can't claim for loss or suffering related to a dogs death under law so the 10% of what you asked for is more than you would be legally entitled to. Could I ask how much you sought in damages for suffering? Or how much for this proportion they have offered, it may put it into context about how reasonable the offer is

RosiPossum

1jim wrote: »

You have said previously that you can't claim for loss or suffering related to a dogs death under law so the 10% of what you asked for is more than you would be legally entitled to. Could I ask how much you sought in damages for suffering? Or how much for this proportion they have offered, it may put it into context about how reasonable the offer is

I wonder this too. If you asked for £10k then you're being very unreasonable. If you asked for £2k then that's fair enough (in my view!).
What is it you actually want? If they offered you the full amount without admitting any wrongdoing, would you be happy?
If it isn't about the money, then it shouldn't matter what they're offering for shock. In fact, you're lucky to get anything.

I do think the 3 day guideline is ridiculous. They have had the stuff for months but suddenly saying you need to know by Friday isn't going to go in your favour.

I do understand why you think there is wrongdoing and that the vets should have to answer to that. If I misinterpreted blood results and a patient suffered ill health because of it, I'd be struck off!

hachette

1jim wrote: »

To be fair it's probably right, looking at this objectively,

Your dog needed surgery, you had that cost to pay regardless of outcome. All surgery carries risk and may not resolve any issues. The fact that you feel your dog was discharged too early would not negate the original cost of the surgery. So would therefore be payable?

The direct financial cost to you from the death of your dog was the costs directly incurred due to his death, therefore only these direct costs would be recoverable

You have said previously that you can't claim for loss or suffering related to a dogs death under law so the 10% of what you asked for is more than you would be legally entitled to. Could I ask how much you sought in damages for suffering? Or how much for this proportion they have offered, it may put it into context about how reasonable the offer is

I have agreed to my dog's biopsy/surgery on the basis that the pre-op blood test (for which I have paid extra) showed that he was fit for that. Well the blood test showed he was not but they still carried on with the surgery.That to me was a breach of contract. I said yes if bloods are OK they were not they did it regardless dog died. I can claim for shock and distress under UK law what I cannot claim for is sentimental dog value. I did not claim for that. They have offered 10% of my claim for shock and distress and all other expenses (solicitor, forensic vet reportr, post mortem report,cremation and other vet's advice) but not for the surgery.

hachette

RosiPossum wrote: »

I wonder this too. If you asked for £10k then you're being very unreasonable. If you asked for £2k then that's fair enough (in my view!).
What is it you actually want? If they offered you the full amount without admitting any wrongdoing, would you be happy?
If it isn't about the money, then it shouldn't matter what they're offering for shock. In fact, you're lucky to get anything.

I do think the 3 day guideline is ridiculous. They have had the stuff for months but suddenly saying you need to know by Friday isn't going to go in your favour.

I do understand why you think there is wrongdoing and that the vets should have to answer to that. If I misinterpreted blood results and a patient suffered ill health because of it, I'd be struck off!

As a matter of fact it was £2k for the shock and distress plus expenses. The fact that they have made an offer for all the expenses( less the surgery cost) plus 10% of shock and distress calim is an admission of wrongdoing. No insurance company offers money unless they know they will have good fight on their hands.
Anyway I will reject it . By the way 3 day deadline worked.

Valli

If you reject their offer and take it to court you do realise that the courts may well decide that the offer made to you was a fair and reasonable one.

And you may well lose a court case AND have to pay the costs of bringing the action and the costs of the other party.

RosiPossum

It worked in them giving you an offer you're rejecting.
Three days is just unreasonable, and it's giving you less credibility.

I'm on your side and I think you have been wronged. But they aren't admitting anything by giving you an offer. Maybe that's the price they're willing to pay for you to drop it?
I really hope that you get the closure you need

RosiPossum

As I asked before, if it isn't about the money, why are you rejecting the claim?

peachyprice

hachette wrote: »

A10% of shock and distress calim is an admission of wrongdoing. No insurance company offers money unless they know they will have good fight on their hands.
.

It really isn't, and you'll probably have to sign a letter confirming that you accept their offer is not an admission of wrongdoing and you will take no further action. It's just the cheapest option for them.

So you'll have to decide, is it about the money, or is it about righting a wrong?

1jim

Insurance companies offer to pay all the time even when they feel it's not warranted. The hard fact is that it's sometimes easier/cheaper to pay than defend an action, as a business that's what they will base it on, they will work out how much they will spend defending a case and how much they could save by settling