Following the occurrence of a dog bite incident, the owner of the biting canine could enjoy protection from liability, if he or she had purchased homeowner’s insurance.
Benefits enjoyed by dog owners that have secured a homeowner’s policy
• Coverage of any medical expenses that might be claimed by the dog’s victim
• Coverage of any property damage that might have resulted from the dog’s aggressive actions
• Coverage of any additional losses, such as a victim’s loss of earnings, while recovering from the biting injury
• Payment of a personal injury lawyer in London, if the insured individual were to get sued by the dog’s victim; this could make it harder for the same victim to obtain the requested level of compensation.
Times when a homeowner’s policy might not deliver those benefits to a canine owning policyholder
• When the policyholder owned a pit bull
• When the policyholder’s canine was a Rottweiler or a Doberman
• If the policyholder’s canine could qualify as dangerous, for some reason other than its breed.
Alternatives to a homeowner’s policy
Not all dogs have owners that live in a home. Some of them rent an apartment. The renter of an apartment would have no reason to buy homeowner’s insurance. So, how could such a person be guaranteed protection from liability?
That protection could come from animal or pet insurance. Understand, though, that some of the companies that sell homeowner’s insurance, as well as those that sell animal or pet insurance follow a similar approach to one particular situation.
Approach taken by some companies that sell one of the 3 types of insurance
Some of those companies cover only the first claim that has been made by the policyholder. The following claims might not be covered, because the canine’s actions would have already shown the policyholder’s four-legged friend to be rather dangerous.
As stated above, someone that owned a pit bull, a Rottweiler or a Doberman could not expect to enjoy protection from liability, if that same person had purchased homeowner’s insurance. By the same token, the filing of a claim might expose the fact that the canine’s owner did not do a good job of controlling his or her pet. For instance, a claim might have been made by someone that had requested the services of a computer technician, while not going to the trouble to secure the “four-legged guardian” of the residence that contained the malfunctioning computer. Those facts might come to light, after a bitten technician had sued the negligent dog/computer owner.
Obviously, the insurance company that was then forced to pay the technician’s medical expenses, along with covering any other losses, would want to take steps to prevent a repeat of that same sort of incident.