State Farm Insurance 'bills family of dog killed by customer for damages' - ehMac.ca
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Advertise


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 27th, 2010, 12:08 AM   #1
Mac Guru
 
monokitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,627
State Farm Insurance 'bills family of dog killed by customer for damages'

It might be by the book, but you gotta let some things slide...

Dog killed by car, family billed for the damages - thestar.com.

Quote:
When Kim Flemming arrived home from work on March 23 and let the dog out, she didn’t know these were the last few moments she would see the family’s beloved yellow Lab alive.

Twelve-year-old Jake loved to roam the area around the Flemmings’ Leslie St. home in Aurora.

“Next thing I knew there was a knock on the door and a gentleman said, ‘Do you have a dog? He’s on the road,’ ” Flemming recalled. “This lady had hit him. I got to the road and he was dying. He died in my arms.”

About two months later, on May 17, Flemming received a bill for $1,732.80 from State Farm Insurance.

The letter, which included five pages of documentation and three pages of photographs, explained that State Farm had received a claim for damages from the driver.

“Our investigation into this matter has found you to be 100-per-cent responsible. As such, we are looking to you for reimbursement,” the letter stated.

The bill included the cost of parts and labour for fixing the bumper, as well as the cost of a rental car.
Thoughts?
__________________
ACMT
MacBook Pro (15-inch, Mid 2012) 2.3 GHz Core i7, 16GB, 256GB M4 SSD
iPhone 8 - 64GB S/G • Sound System Audio Engine A2 • Display UltraSharp U2412M 24"
Custom Built Gaming PC Kaby Lake Edition | 16GB DDR4 | GTX 1070 8G
monokitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old May 27th, 2010, 12:40 AM   #2
Honourable Citizen
 
CubaMark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 17,678
Send a message via AIM to CubaMark
My thoughts are not publishable.

I would have a few choice words in my reply to the letter... ...and let the company sue. No jury would convict.

...heartless...
__________________
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Cuban Revolution as Socialist Human Development Brill Books (Amazon Paperback)
CubaMark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2010, 01:47 AM   #3
Honourable Citizen
 
MLeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Left coast
Posts: 2,972
I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't think people should just let their dogs 'out to roam the neighbourhood'.

I'm sorry her dog is dead, but responsible pet ownership means being responsible for your pet. So, technically, yes, she is responsible for the damages to the car if the dog ran out in front of it.

Insurance agencies to seem to be rather heartless, however.
__________________
"Without ambition one starts nothing. Without work one finishes nothing." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
MLeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2010, 01:52 AM   #4
kps
Tritium Glow
 
kps's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: North of the Mullet Line
Posts: 7,141
The truly heartless thing is when they raise the rates on the woman's auto insurance.

Blood sucking cretins...

+1 to giving them the finger and letting them sue.
__________________
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
kps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2010, 02:48 AM   #5
Honourable Citizen
 
bsenka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Winterpeg
Posts: 1,267
Counter-sue for replacing the dog and emotional damages?
__________________
iPad 32GB w 3G / iPod Classic 160GB / iPod shuffle 2GB / iPod Touch 4 32GB.

Mac Pro 8-Core 2.8GHz , 23" Cinema HD Display, medium Intuos4. / 20" iMac 2.4GHz w. 22" LG matte side display and 15" Cintiq

HP Mini "hackbook"
bsenka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2010, 04:15 AM   #6
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by mleh View Post
i'm probably in the minority here, but i don't think people should just let their dogs 'out to roam the neighbourhood'.

I'm sorry her dog is dead, but responsible pet ownership means being responsible for your pet. So, technically, yes, she is responsible for the damages to the car if the dog ran out in front of it.

Insurance agencies to seem to be rather heartless, however.
+1

(but only because she admitted to letting the dog out herself.... if the dog happened to jump the fence and got hit by a car, and then the insurance company tried to pull that i'd side against the heartless insurance companies we all love to hate)

Last edited by i-rui; May 27th, 2010 at 03:40 PM.
i-rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2010, 05:11 AM   #7
Canadian By Choice
 
Dr.G.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lunenburg, NS
Posts: 115,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeh View Post
I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't think people should just let their dogs 'out to roam the neighbourhood'.

I'm sorry her dog is dead, but responsible pet ownership means being responsible for your pet. So, technically, yes, she is responsible for the damages to the car if the dog ran out in front of it.

Insurance agencies to seem to be rather heartless, however.
I have to agree here. While it is a sad case, as the owner of dogs, I don't just let them roam outside.
__________________
Dr.G.
14" G4 iBook
15" MacBook Pro (July, 2009)
13" MacBooK Pro with Retina Display
Paix
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read these books." Mark Twain
Dr.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2010, 08:15 AM   #8
Resident Hijacker
 
Sonal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Toronto, and proud of it.
Posts: 8,758
By interesting coincidence, there is a State Farm Way that runs just off of Leslie Street in Aurora.
Sonal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2010, 08:26 AM   #9
Full Citizen
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeh View Post
I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't think people should just let their dogs 'out to roam the neighbourhood'.

I'm sorry her dog is dead, but responsible pet ownership means being responsible for your pet. So, technically, yes, she is responsible for the damages to the car if the dog ran out in front of it.

Insurance agencies to seem to be rather heartless, however.
It seems so far you're not in the minority.

I agree as well. It ticks me off with cats too. I'm going to feel awful if I hit a cat and I'll be pissed at the owner for causing it. I wonder if I could sue the owner for emotional distress or something....hmmm
imnothng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2010, 08:33 AM   #10
Indigent Academic
 
rgray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Gulag of E ON
Posts: 8,100
I agree with the main drift here. Pet ownership has responsibilities. Frankly it is about time that a pet owner got 'called' on those responsibilities.
__________________
"not all those who wander are lost….." j.r.r. tolkien
rgray is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Disgusted by London Shooting lpkmckenna Everything Else, eh! 292 Aug 21st, 2005 01:36 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:16 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 1999 - 2012, ehMac.ca All rights reserved. ehMac is not affiliated with Apple Inc. Mac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, Apple TV are trademarks of Apple Inc. Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2

Tribe.ca: Urban living in Toronto!