Dog Provoked by Gardener- Sentenced to Death - Page 3

Oh, OK.  It wouldn't allow me to look at the Yahoo page!  Sounds like old news, because I've been posting this on another forum as things came up - and I didn't see it there this morning, either (usually someone, somewhere, who is dog-crazy posts about these things).

 I have not researched the issue, but I would not be at all surprised if you found only a handful (or fewer) states that look at a dog "doing his job" as non-criminal.  And, I would be willing to bet that those that are would be in the South, particularly Texas.  Texans seem to understand the concept of "self-defense" a bit better than other states.  Guess that's why it's a "whole other country."   People purchase dogs, often in part, for protection.   They actually mean "deterrent" because if the dog actually does protect you, you may be charged criminally and liable in a civil action.     Again, this is one of those areas where dog-owners NEED to become more politically involved and PRO-ACTIVE.

Mystere,
Appreciated your post's very much.  You mentioned one of the reasons that moving to the south,  esp. Texas, is inviting. 
The crap today, muddyed with political correctness, Peta and folks mentality, and a total lack of common sense will drive me nuts if I let it. I always say " people are funny ".  We can see a hurricane coming and will sit and do nothing about it. People simply will not get involved which leaves the morans to push their radical agendas through without being contested.  " ah, that hurricane is just going to blow right on past us ma, no need to worry ".

As far as the law, civil or otherwise, I have always maintained that I will always defend my wife, my family,and neighbors  . I had a dog years ago that was for real as real could be. An experienced person told me that if that dog go ahold of someone coming in my house illegally I would be in trouble cause the dog would do lots of damage.
I thought to myself, " good, if he hurts someone badly that is intending to hurt my  wife or children, I will gladly take my chances in court".   Law suits and legal problems are the least of my worries when it comes to what is right and just and fair.

Anyone who puts their hands on MY wife is taking some real chances.  From her, me, my double barrel, and my dogs.  In that order.  As far as taking my chances in court, suffice it to say that I have a very deep river just behind my house.

"If someone antagonized MY dogs let alone hit them, I would make sure that they did not receive MONEY for their stupidity."

The property insurer calls the shots as to whether to settle when a homeowner is sued, not the homeowner.  The homeowner can always stop the insurer's attempt to settle, but then the insurer's obligation to defend the homeowner and pay any judgment ceases as well.  After all, it's the insurer's money at stake in an insurance claim, not the homeowner's.

And given the speed with which settlement was reached - and the amount - I'm guessing that the media reports we're reading leading us to believe that Congo was a "good boy defending his 'mummy' from assault" may not tell the entire story here.  Anyone who deals with insurers on a regular basis as I do can tell you two things: a) insurers hate to hand out money, and 2) even when they come to the realization that the best course of action is to hand out money, they tend to do it v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y.

In this case, it would seem that, despite the owners' version of events and a somewhat unsympathetic illegal alien claimant, the insurer very quickly came to the conclusion that it had to make this case go away as soon as possible in order to limit its exposure.  That in turn causes me to question whether we're getting all the facts from the media, or whether the insurer's investigation turned up contradictory or additional information that will stay buried in its file and away from our consideration. 

Let's top this case off with:  $250,000 awarded to the illegal from the homeowner's insurance and probably and nice top rate free hospital care and follow up.  Why is he still here?

My husband and I owned a commercial landscape company for 20+ years - you DO NOT show up at someone's personal residence before 8:00 a.m. much less at 6:30 in the morning - what idiots to start with.  And now they change their story and say he never touched the wife....bullllll......I have employed my share and they will say anything you want to hear in order to get what they want.....

My husband started testing this "say yes to everything" issue and would ask what experience they had.  He would ask:    can you run a weedeater....yes.....can you use an edger......yes......can you fly the space shuttle....yes.....Haha, no thank you.

The insurer in this case knows that the homeowners have DEEP pockets and will just turn around a recoup their money by a hefty increase in their rates.  Sorry Pt, I beg to differ - it is the Insurer's $$$, where do we get the idea that it isn't?  I have had 2 major claims, one worker comp - paid out $30K, insurance rose $800/mo for 3 years - do the math.  2nd claim on homeowner's for Hurricane Frances - paid insurance over $40K for past 18 years, paid us $18K and cancelled policy, again whose money was this?

Actually, I'd guess the insurer probably washed their hands of the homeowners and cancelled their policy altogether. 

As for your own worker comp case, aside from their ability to recoup the money from you through rate increases, the insurer also was dealing with a smaller claim amount that may have not much sense to vigorously contest.  And in the case of  a worker's comp claim, there's a lot more certainty as to the ultimate value of the claim involved than there is in a jury-tried personal injury case.  So the two situations are really apples and oranges.

The insurer is going to try to recoup $250,000 from the homeowner - never.  Homeowners insurance doesn't work like that.  I know of some cases where the carrier pays out maximum limits this quickly - they are few & far between.  There is more to this story than meets the eye, also the story seems to have changed  since it was first published.  Unfortunately, nothing is ever simple, or as cut and dried as we would like it to be and there are two sides to this story.

A carrier can't arbitrarily raise a homeowners rates or increase premiums as they see fit.  Any rate increase must be approved by the insurance commissioner for that particular state, and the rates are then published.