Medical Bills from a Dog Bite

[IS7]

My question involves an injury that occurred in the state of: California

I was bitten by a dog. Got the ER bill. Dog owners says he will not pay it until I submit it to my health insurance 1st. He himself claims to have no renters or homeowners insurance even though he lives in an apartment complex that requires all dog onwers to have renters. He says that if we go to court about this then the judge will say that I have to submit to my insurance 1st too and that he will only liable for the remainder of the bill. Is he right about this?

[Who'sThatGuy]

So submit the bill to your insurance company. The insurance company will ether pay, or not pay the claim.

If they don't pay the claim, submit the bill to the dogs owner.

If they pay the claim, minus any deductibles, then submit the bills that you are out of pocket for and let your insurance company sue the dogs owner for there money back.

[jk]

My question involves an injury that occurred in the state of: California

I was bitten by a dog. Got the ER bill. Dog owners says he will not pay it until I submit it to my health insurance 1st. He himself claims to have no renters or homeowners insurance even though he lives in an apartment complex that requires all dog onwers to have renters. He says that if we go to court about this then the judge will say that I have to submit to my insurance 1st too and that he will only liable for the remainder of the bill. Is he right about this?

No, he isn't right about that.

He is liable for all the damages. In fact, if you do utilize your insurance, they can attempt to recover those costs from the dog owner.

and no, a judge will not require you submit it to the insurance company first.

[SChinFChin]

My question involves an injury that occurred in the state of: California

I was bitten by a dog. Got the ER bill. Dog owners says he will not pay it until I submit it to my health insurance 1st. He himself claims to have no renters or homeowners insurance even though he lives in an apartment complex that requires all dog onwers to have renters. He says that if we go to court about this then the judge will say that I have to submit to my insurance 1st too and that he will only liable for the remainder of the bill. Is he right about this?

I don't know how large the ER bill is, meaning if it can go under small claims.

I would not only sue him in small claims, but I would also sue his landlord, for the failure to verify he has renter's insurance if it is in the lease, and then have the LL's insurance pay you, and then have them get after the tenant. If he does not have renters, then his LL is negligient. I'm sure the LL has liability insurance to protect his investment. I'm not joking, an employee of mine who got injured cannot collect workman's comp from me under state law (NY), so he turned around, sued the my LL instead for a cool million, and the LL can then sue me for negligience.

Though I generally don't allow dogs in my rentals, but I make an exception from time to time, and when I do, I not only make sure my tenant really really has renter's insurance, but also the additional endorsement for dogs. I've been told I could be sued for my tenant's dog's dog bites.

I agree with the others that you are not legally required to file with your health insurance, and if you did, they would get after him anyway. Then it could be under your annual dedcutable where you might not even get paid. I received questionaires from my Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan from time to time after they paid for my care, asking how the injury came about. The reason is they can then go after the person or persons responsible, such as in cases like this.

[IS7]

The ER bill is $1500.

What also concerns me is that if the dog owner is telling the truth and really doesnt have renters, then this landlord is allowing people with dogs and no insurance into the neighborhood. I also want to do whats right for my community here.

[jk]

there is no law I am aware of the would require a LL to require a tenant to carry insurance. That also does not make the LL liable for any damages.

so, you send a demand letter. If he refuses and you want to attempt to collect; file suit.

[LawResearcherMissy]

The ER bill is $1500.

You aren't required to submit it to your insurance company first. BUT! Doing so might make it easier on you.

Submit it to your insurance. Make it clear to your insurer that the treatment was needed as a result of being bitten by a neighbor's uncontrolled dog. If your insurer is anything like mine, they'll send you a letter asking for more details, including the name of the dog owner and a request for the police report (if one was filed, and one should have been). You send that in, they pay the hospital, then they chase the dog's owner down through a process called subrogation, wherein they sue him back to the Stone Ages to recover what they paid out.

All you have to do is a little paperwork, and it's less of a hassle than dragging him to court yourself. Of course, you might want to do that anyway, to recover any deductibles you're stuck with, but that would depend on your deductibles, I suppose. My own for an ER visit is $100. I'd eat that in favor of letting Aetna hound the guy to the ends of the universe.

[Mr. Knowitall]

There's an interesting history of case law in California pertaining to the collateral source rule, the evidentiary rule that prevents introduction of evidence of payments received from collateral sources (third parties, such as insurance companies) as a basis to reduce the plaintiff's recovery. The current interpretation (for non-malpractice cases) is summarized here. The short version is that recovery should not be reduced based upon what your insurance company pays, but that if you submit your claim to insurance then liability is limited to the bill as negotiated by the insurance company, not a higher bill you would pay if you were uninsured.

It is true, as outlined above, that your health insurance likely has a contractual subrogation right, such that by seeking coverage through them you assign to them your right to attempt to recover the amount they paid for your care from the defendant.

Keep in mind that litigation isn't a fast process. If you don't go through insurance, you may end up damaging your credit by the time this is resolved - and that delaying an attempt to get coverage through your health insurance may result in your claim being rejected as untimely.

[SChinFChin]

there is no law I am aware of the would require a LL to require a tenant to carry insurance. That also does not make the LL liable for any damages.

so, you send a demand letter. If he refuses and you want to attempt to collect; file suit.

I am a LL, and I know there is no law that requires my tenants to carry renters insurance, nor are there laws that require LL's to carry liability insurance either.

But a serious LL should and MUST require it, particularly if he allows dogs. As to the LL not responsible for tenant's dogs, case law says otherwise:

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/o...lordtenant.htm

I did not require tenants to carry renters for about 15 years of my 30 year LL career. About 15 years ago, I was managing some rentals for my mother in law, a burglar broke into a rental unit, several thousand dollars of items were taken. so the tenant filed a claim against us, initially for the stolen items.

It turned out we are not responsible for the tenant's valuables, indeed we as LL's can't even buy insurnace on it, as we can't insure other people's belongings. So the tenant then sued on the basis of "the lack of security and negligience", and it was handled that way.

In both my MIL's case, and in the case of my employee when I had a business suing the LL for $1,000,000, the LL is sued on the basis of negligience. Negligience was also the basis for a customer suing the owner of the business that sold me the business where they were sued personally.

I (not the law) require my tenants to carry renters insurance, and make sure they carry it after the tenant got after my MIL for negligience, after many years of believing LL's can't be sued for burglaries and dogbites. I have not been sued for dogbites because I generally do not allow dogs at my rentals, but I have heard of LL's being sued, which is another big reason LL's do not allow dogs.

One good example of requring renters was a tenant of mine left his windows open, went off to work, and much of his belongings got damaged. I told him he was negligent after he wanted me to file claims under my LL's liability insurance beleving LL's cover tenant's belongings. At that point, I already had the incident with my MIL's tenant, and I told him he has a renter's requirement in his lease, and file the claim with them, Turned out he tried to fool me, bought the renters, showed me the paperwork, then cancelled it to get the refund.

So when he told me he was going to sue me, I started evictions on the basis he violated the lease. When he realized I wasn't fooling that he shut up about suing, called it off, and apologized. If I was foolish enough to beleive the law does not require renters, say it doesn't matter, I would've had big problems with this guy, though ultimately, I don't beleive any judge would find me liable if a tenant is negligient.

So if I go around saying the law does not require renters, I know the business well enough that anytime anything happens, the tenant is going to yell the LL is negligient, and I have to go out and get lawyers. Wouldn't it be simpler to say where's your renters???

Indeed, as a 30 year LL, I say if a LL allow dogs, does not require renters, he is negligent.

[IS7]

So in my case the LL also says they require all tenants with dog to have renters. But the dog owner claims he doesn't have it. I don't see why would the dog owner lie to me about having renters...

Is the LL guilty of negligence then, because they failed to verify this guys proof of renters even though they require it?