Page 1 of 1
not good for dog owners
Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 11:34 am
by Turdacious
Dog bites man does not get a lot of attention in the news, but it costs insurance companies hundreds of millions in claims every year.
State Farm Insurance, one of the nation's largest home insurers, paid more than $109 million on about 3,800 dog bite claims nationwide last year, spokesman Eddie Martinez said Wednesday. In 2010, there were about 3,500 claims and $90 million in payouts.
The Insurance Information Institute estimated that nearly $479 million in dog bite claims were paid by all insurance companies in 2011, spokeswoman Loretta Worters said. In 2010, it was $413 million.
It's no surprise that California — home to more dogs and people than any other state — led the way in 2011.
Martinez says 527 claims were filed in California and victims received $20.3 million, a jump of 31 percent over 2010.
State Farm is still working to determine reasons for the spike, Martinez said.
http://news.yahoo.com/leading-insurer-p ... 2U-;_ylv=3
That's an average of about $29k per claim. Guess which way your home insurance rates are going.
Re: not good for dog owners
Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 11:53 am
by Pinky
Turdacious wrote:Martinez says 527 claims were filed in California and victims received $20.3 million, a jump of 31 percent over 2010.
State Farm is still working to determine reasons for the spike, Martinez said.
Due to budget problems the state of California had to cut funding to their free companion animal aromatherapy clinics. That must have caused the spike.
Re: not good for dog owners
Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 12:33 pm
by Shafpocalypse Now
Holy smokes. I hope the ghetto denizens of the rust belt DON'T get wind of this.
Re: not good for dog owners
Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 12:43 pm
by clutch
Last summer, I was bitten; I basically scrubbed the wound, and got on with life. In about a month, I was fine - did my own PT for the bruised tendon, no loss in grip strength or motor control.
About the same time, one of the docs at Sharon's clinic was bitten. According to Sharon, her bite was much less damaging than mine - nearly no blood, no real pain, and no bruising.
She ran up $15+k in trauma care bills, including an ambulance ride, getting it taken care of properly. In about a month, she was fine.
Re: not good for dog owners
Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 1:26 pm
by j-cubed
What, and no mention of the breeds involved!
Re: not good for dog owners
Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 1:39 pm
by The Crawdaddy
BobW wrote:Last summer, I was bitten; I basically scrubbed the wound, and got on with life. In about a month, I was fine - did my own PT for the bruised tendon, no loss in grip strength or motor control.
About the same time, one of the docs at Sharon's clinic was bitten. According to Sharon, her bite was much less damaging than mine - nearly no blood, no real pain, and no bruising.
She ran up $15+k in trauma care bills, including an ambulance ride, getting it taken care of properly. In about a month, she was fine.
This is a good illustration for the point that most of society just needs to harden the fuck up a little bit and stop asking everyone to wipe their ass for them. There are really only a few things that are (imo) spot-on trips to the ER: chest pain & gaping flesh wounds.
Re: not good for dog owners
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 8:47 am
by Protobuilder
I thought that police had shot all the dogs.
Re: not good for dog owners
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 6:01 pm
by Pinky
Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Holy smokes. I hope the ghetto denizens of the rust belt DON'T get wind of this.
How much can the insurance rise on a house that's only worth $5,000?
Re: not good for dog owners
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 6:50 pm
by TerryB
Terry B. wrote:I thought that police had shot all the dogs.
Give them time.