insurance question - is this likely to be covered?

[Elessar]

A friends dog got injured on my boat on Saturday.
An op is needed and the bill is looking larger that their pet insurance will pay.
My boat insurance includes 3rd party insurance of course.
Does that mean if a 3rd party successfully claims against me on the boat the insurance would cover my loss?
Would I have to have been negligent for a claim against me to be successful?
Does the claim against me bit effectively mean a claim directly against the insurers by the 3rd party?

 

[Alpha22]

If he got injured in your garden, would your house insurance cover it?

 

[jfm]

A friends dog got injured on my boat on Saturday.
An op is needed and the bill is looking larger that their pet insurance will pay.
My boat insurance includes 3rd party insurance of course.
Does that mean if a 3rd party successfully claims against me on the boat the insurance would cover my loss?
Would I have to have been negligent for a claim against me to be successful?
Does the claim against me bit effectively mean a claim directly against the insurers by the 3rd party?

1. Dog owner could claim the vet cost against you personally.
2. IF that claim were vlaid/successful then assuming you have a typical-ish policy your insurers would pay
3. For the claim to be successful there are 2 hurdles:
(a) yes you would have to have been negligent. I would think that making a boat safe for a slippery dog is arguably something you are less required to do than for a human. Even less your respnsibility if the dog's arrival was a surprise ie you didn't invite the dog. whether you were negligent depends on the exact facts.
(b) the guy's loss isn't necessarily the vet fees. Depends. If the dog is nothing special and similar dog can be got for £0 from Battersea dogs home, then his loss is the cost of putting the existing dog down, not the vet's fees. Those fees are discretionary if he can get a new same-make dog for £0. If alternatively the dog can talk or is a crufts winner, it might have a value in excess of vet fees so his loss might hen be the vet fees
4. Yes to your last question. The insurer would normally handle defending the claim against you

It's a funny old world eh? Who can be bothered suing a friend over a dog injury? Good luck

 

[jrudge]

dog can talk or is a crufts winner, it might have a value in excess of vet fees so his loss might hen be the vet fee

I am sitting on BA flight waiting to leave with people looking at me as I am laughing so much

 

[volvopaul]

I am also laughing so much, why would a friend want to persue you for his vets fees when they were on a day out with you enjoying themselves , I could understand dog claiming if he hurt himself doing his day skipper on your boat which in my view is about as daft as the claim. It just shows where insurance is all going wrong in my book that's why it's so expensive in other areas as well as boating.

I had a rope round my starboard prop yesterday afternoon, the scenario was that my berth was occupied so I had to temporarily moor alongside a boat until Anthony moved it, while moving from the temp berth to our berth the rope fell in the water unbeknownst to me. Had our berth not been occupied this would not have happened but it did, net result the rope went in the water round the prop.
Had the we been able to moor direct on our berth the accident would not have happened, did I contact my insurer for a lift out to get the rope off, no I didn't, yet I could have quite easily and charged them for a lift out etc. common sense sorted the problem end of.

 

[petem]

I am also laughing so much, why would a friend want to persue you for his vets fees when they were on a day out with you enjoying themselves

I'd suggest it's because OP hopes he might have insured himself to cover such an eventuality. Certainly no harm in the OP asking the question although I did have a wry smile at JFM's excellent reply that to me suggested that a dog could be a 'write-off' if vet fees exceed dog's value!

Anyhow, I how the dog is OK, these things can be quite distressing for all concerned and if the financial stress could be removed then I'm sure that would be helpful. Personally I learnt a few years ago that cheap pet insurance is a false economy, pay the extra for decent limits of cover.

 

[bigwow]

The only time someone arrived to go on my boat with a dog, they both remained on the pontoon:encouragement:

 

[beejay190]

Mate of mine , boat owner and fellow forumite is the founder of the Canine Extermination Society. No way a dog would be allowed on his boat or , if he had his way, within 100 yards of his boat.

I am of the opposite view.

 

[MapisM]

If the dog is nothing special and similar dog can be got for £0 from Battersea dogs home, then his loss is the cost of putting the existing dog down, not the vet's fees. Those fees are discretionary if he can get a new same-make dog for £0. If alternatively the dog can talk or is a crufts winner, it might have a value in excess of vet fees

Luckily, I'm in my boat cockpit rather than in a BA flight as jrudge, so I could laugh out loud without attracting a lot of attention...
But on second thought, knowing that you are usually spot on with these sort of evaluations, "it's a sad world we're living in" is what sprung to my mind... :ambivalence:

 

[jfm]

suggested that a dog could be a 'write-off' if vet fees exceed dog's value!

Yup. Indeed, many dogs of the type you get for free at the dogs' home, nice though they may be, are a "write off" technically when they need feeding. It would be financially cheaper to trade in for another dog that has recently been fed, than to buy a bone for the one you already have. Paying vets fees for such an animal will be seen in a case like this an action generally taken out of choice, not need.

To all dog lovers out there: I'm not trying to be unkind to dogs. I'm just answering the question put . I still find the whole situation incredible

 

[Ripster]

I am another one who has just read this story and started in disbelief at the claim potential and then fell about laughing at JFM's humour in illustrating how insurers and law might see it.

 

[petem]

Yup. Indeed, many dogs of the type you get for free at the dogs' home, nice though they may be, are a "write off" technically when they need feeding. It would be financially cheaper to trade in for another dog that has recently been fed, than to buy a bone for the one you already have. Paying vets fees for such an animal will be seen in a case like this an action generally taken out of choice, not need.

Harsh words JFM

My SWMBO has obviously pre-empted this issue my spending a fortune on our dog. God only knows how much it cost (she won't even tell me) but I suspect the money could be better spend on vital navigation equipment (e.g. an autohelm) .

 

[rubberduck]

A friends dog got injured on my boat on Saturday.
An op is needed and the bill is looking larger that their pet insurance will pay.
My boat insurance includes 3rd party insurance of course.
Does that mean if a 3rd party successfully claims against me on the boat the insurance would cover my loss?
Would I have to have been negligent for a claim against me to be successful?
Does the claim against me bit effectively mean a claim directly against the insurers by the 3rd party?

Guessing you actually want to help friend out rather than friend going for you ?

 

[petem]

The former is how I read it.

 

[longjohnsilver]

If your "friend" is going to pursue you for costs then maybe he/she is not really such a friend. Or are you just considering the worst possible scenario?

 

[rubberduck]

The former is how I read it.

Funny how things can be misunderstood on forums, particularly when its tricky question to ask on an open forum, suggest a pm to JFM.

 

[Elessar]

Thank you as always JFM for your wise advice. And contrary to some I didn't take your advice to mean that the dog was only worth the "replacement value" to the family, just to an insurance contract.

Bit saddened by those of you who found this amusing. Mr Duck thanks for your thoughtful reply.

 

[Portofino]

Elessar -
How will a sucessful claim for the vet bill " top up "effect your no claims discount ( assuming you have built one up ? )
Will you have to pay any excess ?
I thought insurance Co,s did not like double pay outs in the sence the vet receiving £ from both ? Pet ins and your boat ins.
So I assume your friend will square up the vet ,paying the fees direct -,then make his pet ins claim via the vet having to help complete the claim form -sign it ,stamp it etc ,
Then the friend presents you with the loss that the pet ins falls short .As mentioned your ins Co should deal with this .Q4 in the original post .
Without knowing the actual details of the injury to the dog -they may refute the claim .

 

[MapisM]

Bit saddened by those of you who found this amusing.

Actually, I don't think anyone found amusing the fact that the poor dog was badly hurt.
I sure didn't, fwiw, and I hope it's clear that having found amusing the way jfm formulated his explanation has nothing to see with that.

 

[silverdee]

Not so sure I agree with JFM here-- yes dog is a chattel and if say a non pet farm animal then claim limited to value.
But do see argument that if pet is unique (in sense of loved by owner) reckon fair chance in practice District Judge will award well in excess of animal value vets bills.
Have always recovered full vets bills in rta cases -- to be fair insurers have never tried it on. Cases are rare so i am offering tentative view here. Similar to motor cases where 99.9% of time claim limited to pre accident value but if car so unique that same car/spec can`t be found then even if value say 50k could recover repair costs in excess of that.