Dog strike to car - insurance or private repairs?

uk1

onwards&upwards wrote: »

I’d like to think a decent person who had just hit a dog and killed it wouldn’t be so heartless as to go after the owners for money.

You are confused.

The OP wasn't responsible for the dog's death, it was the owner of the dog who failed to control it. It is quite possible to be a decent person and feel mortified and deeply upset for the dog, sympathy for the owner, but feel that the person responsible for the damage should pay for it. If you wouldn't do so then I am perfectly happy for you but it doesn't make you "decent". Perhaps it will encourage the owner to be a little more careful in future.

lisyloo

davidwatts wrote: »

I think people were just suggesting, correctly, that it was more likely than not that the dog owner would have insurance. Overall, most households have contents insurance that would provide relevant 3rd party liability. (I remember reading something that said a substantial majority of homeowners have contents insurance though it does dip below 50% for certain types of tenant.) Also, these days it is increasingly common for there to be a degree of liability cover under Pet policies as well.

Not guaranteed, but certainly a strong possibility.

Do you have any source for more than likely?
I don’t but I know a scary number of householders who haven’t had insurwnce for various reasons (often by mistake).
Travellers and homeless people sometimes have dogs.


If you are correct ( and I hope you are) then the motor insurer should take up the claim against the 3rd party on the basis than more than likely theyll get their money back (my expectation is they won’t pursue and I’d love to hear their explanation).

lisyloo

onwards&upwards wrote: »

I’d like to think a decent person who had just hit a dog and killed it wouldn’t be so heartless as to go after the owners for money.

Dog owners should keep their animals under control.
They could be risking the death of a motorcyclist or pedal cyclist or even a motorist or a child that just happens to be in the way.
If it is dangerously out of control then they could (and should) be prosecuted and can face a jail sentence.

Your personal feelings on the matter are not in line with the law (see link I posted earlier).

How would you feel if it was your baby that was killed or a family member on a pedal cycle?

davidwatts

lisyloo wrote: »

Do you have any source for more than likely?

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/01/20/only-39-private-tenants-have-contents-insurance

They may or may not, it's just my feeling that it's at least slightly better than a 50/50 proposition and I posted more as a reaction to the comment about people assuming they would automatically have it when I don't think anyone had actually said that.

As you say, the most typical way to establish it would be via ones insurer following a claim (especially given the OPs difficulties in finding out who the owner was).

sheramber

lisyloo wrote: »

Did you friend pay voluntarily?
Claim off their insurance?
Or something else?

I’d like to think a decent person with the means to pay would just pay out.

No, they did not have insurance and yes , they paid up.

unforeseen

lisyloo wrote: »

Dog owners should keep their animals under control.
They could be risking the death of a motorcyclist or pedal cyclist or even a motorist or a child that just happens to be in the way.
If it is dangerously out of control then they could (and should) be prosecuted and can face a jail sentence.

Your personal feelings on the matter are not in line with the law (see link I posted earlier).

How would you feel if it was your baby that was killed or a family member on a pedal cycle?

If you changed 'dog' to 'child' then what you wrote could also apply. In fact it would be worse because road users are more likely to attempt avoiding action with possible fatal results to 3rd parties if it was a child.

Ms_Chocaholic

I nearly ran over a black dog several years ago who just happened to run straight across my path in the dark, luckily I slammed my brakes on and avoided it. The idiot owner continues to walk it without being on a lead.

amtrakuk

It says on my account the claim status is "Cancelled". The phone operator said the they will send a letter though confirming my NCD and premium are unaffected - Will wait and see.


As for the dog, I have no idea, I tried phoning the vet again and they will not speak to me due to EU data protection. I said well I have done all I can.

lisyloo

amtrakuk wrote: »

It says on my account the claim status is "Cancelled". The phone operator said the they will send a letter though confirming my NCD and premium are unaffected - Will wait and see.

I think they mean your current premium.
You will most likely be loaded for having an incident in future years.
You can check by doing quotes with and without.

lisyloo

davidwatts wrote: »

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/01/20/only-39-private-tenants-have-contents-insurance

They may or may not, it's just my feeling that it's at least slightly better than a 50/50 proposition and I posted more as a reaction to the comment about people assuming they would automatically have it when I don't think anyone had actually said that.

As you say, the most typical way to establish it would be via ones insurer following a claim (especially given the OPs difficulties in finding out who the owner was).

On reflection I agree it’s something like 65%*95% having home insurance.
65% being ownership level and 95* being those with insurance.

On those odds they should theoretically pursue, but having been involved in a similar case before they seem to be reluctant to pursue non-motor especially if the claim is small.

It’s a pain and the OP has my sympathy, but it’s life for motorist.