Personal Injury - dog bite - insurance cover

Parrot2019

I was bitten by a dog last year and I'm considering taking a personal injuries claim against the owner.

I have been carrying out some research online with respect to what is involved, etc.

However I'm left with the question if there is no home insurance in place or the insurance company won't cover the claim - what happens next?

Any solicitor websites I have reviewed all state 'no win no fee' - however there seems to be some ambiguity once it comes to the point if there is a question around the claim being covered by home insurance.

Has anyone else had experience of this and maybe able to enlighten me with some much needed information around this point?

Peregrinus

If you succeed in your claim, and the defendant is uninsured, you may (or may not) have problems collecting from the defendant - it depends on how much you are awarded and how good a mark the defendant is. Which is therefore something you want to look into and factor into your decision about proceeding.

How badly were you injurd and what are your losses? Obviously, the more you are seeking to recover the more problematic it is to recover the amount from an uninsured defendant.

NUTLEY BOY

An additional wrinkle for OP is that the householder does not have to disclose whether or not they have public liability insurance.
That would be an important factor in deciding whether or not to pursue the matter for the exact reasons set out above by Peregrinus.

FYI the last time I dealt with one of these there seemed to be 3 separate public liability [PL] covers under household insurance contracts ;

1. PL cover as a property owner - normally found in the buildings insurance.
2. PL cover as a property occupier - normally found in the contents insurance.
3. PL cover as an individual not under 1 or 2 above. I think that one usually hides inside the contents cover too.

That said, dog bite cases tend to be hard enough to defend. Long gone are the days of the free first bite !
If OP could succeed in getting an insurer to surface that would make a claim worthwhile if the losses and injuries are of substance.

An originating letter of claim from a solicitor requesting the householder to refer the matter to his household insurers might help.
Time matters. If insurers refuse indemnity for late notification there is nothing OP can do about that.

nuac

Mod
Title amended for clarity

Parrot2019

Thanks for this information.

I have two further questions:

1. Can the owner deny they have home insurance in response to a solicitors letter? If so - what can be done next?

2. If either the owner says they don't have insurance or it is eliminated from the equation because the insurance company will not take liability - what is the next step? - Would a 'no win no fee' service still be offered by a solicitor at this juncture?

Peregrinus

Parrot2019 wrote: »

1. Can the owner deny they have home insurance in response to a solicitors letter? If so - what can be done next?

The owner can simply ignore the question or explicitly decline to answer it. He's under no obligation to answer your questions designed to help you make a cost-benefit analysis of the merits of suing him.

The way you would find out would be actually to issue and serve proceedings, and see if an appearance is entered by one of the firms that does defence work on behalf of insurance companies.

A useful bit of information, though, is to know if he's a homeowner. If he is, then he very probably has home insurance, which commonly does include public liability cover, in which case there's a very good chance that he is insured. But you won't know for sure until an insurance company actually gets involved on his behalf.

Parrot2019 wrote: »

2. If either the owner says they don't have insurance or it is eliminated from the equation because the insurance company will not take liability - what is the next step? - Would a 'no win no fee' service still be offered by a solicitor at this juncture?

Probably not. If you're not willing to take the risk that the defendant might not be a mark for costs and damages, when you have much more to gain from this than the solicitor does, why would he be willing to take that risk?

blindside88

Was there much loss or damage? Also why only pursuing a claim almost a year later? This surely matters a lot in whether or not you have a valid claim let alone who will pay for said claim

Victor

blindside88 wrote: »

Also why only pursuing a claim almost a year later?

Plaintiffs have other responsibilities and things going on in their lives.

The full effects of an incident may not be immediately obvious. It is the defendent that has obligations to the plaintiff, not the other way around.

Plaintiffs normally have 2 years to make their claim, although early notice is appropriate.

hullaballoo

Early notice is actually a requirement under section 8 of the PIAB Act and it's been shortened to one month now with it being now also necessary to set out why you failed to give notice within that period if you so failed.

It is ludicrous because, as above, the plaintiff may have no intention of suing until a long time down the road when the extent of injuries first thought to be minor reveal themselves.

JeffKenna

The OP doesn't mention whether they were injured or not?

Hoboo

Why would house insurance cover this if it didn't happen in the house?

Victor

Hoboo wrote: »

Why would house insurance cover this if it didn't happen in the house?

Many home insurance policies include public liability insurance that covers the household, regardless of where the incident happens.

Darc19

hullaballoo wrote: »

Early notice is actually a requirement under section 8 of the PIAB Act and it's been shortened to one month now with it being now also necessary to set out why you failed to give notice within that period if you so failed.

It is ludicrous because, as above, the plaintiff may have no intention of suing until a long time down the road when the extent of injuries first thought to be minor reveal themselves.

That was one of the better things to be introduced and stops scam merchants thinking a year later about claiming and making up all sorts of things.

Not saying the OP is doing this, but to wait a year before thinking about it stinks from high heaven and it's one of the reasons more and more insurance companies are pulling out.

The op will probably complain about cost of insurance next

hullaballoo

Well, that's certainly the uncritical thinking put forward by the insurance lobbyists but anyone with a modicum of knowledge about injuries of any kind would know it's nothing short of complete rubbish.

JeffKenna

hullaballoo wrote: »

Well, that's certainly the uncritical thinking put forward by the insurance lobbyists but anyone with a modicum of knowledge about injuries of any kind would know it's nothing short of complete rubbish.

It's actually quite scary to see the term "mark" used to describe the defendant.

hullaballoo

Yeah, I agree with that. It's a poor word choice but its meaning is obviously different when being used here.

It just means someone who has the assets to cover all or a substantial part of any judgment against them. It doesn't have the same nefarious connotations as when it's used to describe victims of conmen at all but of course it's not entirely unrelated in origin.

But sure it's also a stick for people who hate lawyers to bash them over the head. Let's focus on the positives right.

Peregrinus

JeffKenna wrote: »

It's actually quite scary to see the term "mark" used to describe the defendant.

It's "mark" in the sense of "target".

Litigation 101: Are your proceedings aimed at the right defendant? The right defendant possess two qualities; first, he has a liability to you and, secondly, he has the means to discharge that liablity. If he lacks either of these characteristics then you shouldn't be suing him or, in the jargon, he's not a mark.

Skatedude

If the op does put a claim in, does that mean the dog will have to be put down?

Peregrinus

Skatedude wrote: »

If the op does put a claim in, does that mean the dog will have to be put down?

No. Whether the OP puts in a claim (and whether the claim succeeds) and whether the dog should or must be destroyed are separate questions. The owner might choose to destroy the dog if he loses the case ("I don't want to go through that again") but the court awarding damages won't order this.

sasta le

How bad are you injured?Why don’t you just ask them to cover your medical costs?

JeffKenna

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's "mark" in the sense of "target".

Litigation 101: Are your proceedings aimed at the right defendant? The right defendant possess two qualities; first, he has a liability to you and, secondly, he has the means to discharge that liablity. If he lacks either of these characteristics then you shouldn't be suing him or, in the jargon, he's not a mark.

Is "mark" actually legal slang though? I would have also thought a mark was a sucker/someone you were going to scam or shake down. Not a positive phrase anyway.

Peregrinus

JeffKenna wrote: »

Is "mark" actually legal slang though? I would have also thought a mark was a sucker/someone you were going to scam or shake down. Not a positive phrase anyway.

My impression is that in fairly common use in the profession, and it's not pejorative; just dryly factual (if perhaps brutal; "he's not a mark" is in many cases it's essentially a judgment that you're not worth suing). "He is a mark"; doe not imply that you are stupid or greedy or vulnerable; just that you have money or assets, and so are worth suing. I think it has been in use in that sense for a long time - at a guess, from before the (relatively recent) importation of what I think is a US sense.

The US sense, SFAIK, originated with carnival and fairground workers. A "mark" was a target, in the sense that you would target him with a sales pitch.
So, if you're manning a test-your-strength exhibit, for instance, a young man with his girlfriend was a "mark" - he would find it difficult to resist an invitation to test his strength, and possibly impress his girlfriend. If you're selling candy-floss, a parent with kids is a "mark". And so on.

From here it crossed into criminal slang - a "mark" was someone whose greed, gullibility, carelessness, etc would make him vulnerable to scamming, conning, fraud.

NUTLEY BOY

JeffKenna wrote: »

It's actually quite scary to see the term "mark" used to describe the defendant.

In the world of litigation the concept of a "mark" is a long established term of art as distinct from that modern and unworthy connotation attached to it of a target

Hoboo

Victor wrote: »

Many home insurance policies include public liability insurance that covers the household, regardless of where the incident happens.

I know this, but I'd be very surprised they cover dog bites outside the home. Not saying they dont, just seems very high risk for the insurer when there's no need. Couldn't imagine too many people ask if their house insurance covers a dog bite down the park, so why include it.

I'll check mine later anyhow, interesting to know.

NUTLEY BOY

Hoboo wrote: »

I know this, but I'd be very surprised they cover dog bites outside the home. Not saying they dont, just seems very high risk for the insurer when there's no need. Couldn't imagine too many people ask if their house insurance covers a dog bite down the park, so why include it.

I'll check mine later anyhow, interesting to know.

There are a range of liability covers within a household insurance contract.

Public liability claims for accidents happening in or around the actual house could be based on property ownership and or occupier's liability.

There is usually cover for public liability in situations that fall outside the preceding locations and contexts - that may be called personal liability cover - and would extend to the local park. Against that, I think that there may be geographical limits within which cover applies but that should be in the contract wording.