DangerousDogInsurance.com (TM)

More states, counties, and cities are passing laws that require dogs to be euthanized when these dogs are involved in any incident, even if it is minor. The dog owner does not have the option of moving the dog out of the state, county, or city. This is unconstitutional, in my opinion. So if your dog scratches someone, you may not have the option to move with your dog out of the jurisdiction. You many not have the option to give the dog to a family member who lives in another state. Your dog must be euthanized. Even if this is unconstitutional and you have a strong legal basis to fight this, your legal fees to defend unconstitutional laws could easily cost $10,000 or more. What this means is that you only have constitutional rights if you have the means to fight for them. Yes, that is the American way. Don't think lawmakers pass laws that are unconstitutional? Unconstitutional laws are overturned every day. But most often they are overturned only AFTER someone suffered and was truly motivated to fight. Don't SUFFER. Just educate yourself on the best ways to keep your dog under your control at all times. Put the dog in a kennel before you open the door to a stranger. Don't let your dog run freely in your fenced yard unless you are with him. Use the best harness for your dog. Don't walk your dog during peak hours when other people are walking their dogs. Don't walk with your dog by a neighbor's house if that neighbor has aggressive dogs. Accidents will happen. But sometimes, the consequences are unfair and irreversible. Loving your dog sometimes means that you must put him in a cage, to keep others safe, so that you can keep him safe.

When a dog owner is confronted with having to go to court to face accusations that his dog caused an injury, he often goes without a lawyer. Here is how we were able to help a dog owner who was being pushed around by the animal control officer (ACO) and the prosecutor.******** On the day he appeared for his hearing, the prosecutor and ACO talked with him outside the court, told him that his insurance was not good enough and suggested that the hearing be postponed until he satisfied their demands. So he agreed. When we learned of this, we advised the dog owner not to talk to the prosecutor and to not be persuaded next time to postpone the hearing. We told him to simply tell the prosecutor that he didn't want to discuss the matter outside of the hearing. The fact is that the judge has authority to review the insurance and determine whether or not it is good enough. And even if the prosecutor rejects the insurance, the judge can review it and can approve it. And the prosecutor cannot reject the judge's approval. ****** While it appeared that the prosecutor finally approved his insurance, the ACO created new problems for the dog owner. The dog owner came home to see the ACO sitting in a car in his driveway only because he "heard" that the dog owner moved. Also the ACO confiscated his dog by accusing it of causing injury to an animal despite the fact that there was no real evidence that his dog was involved. So the dog owner was now facing more "charges". Typically, a dog owner who is faced with more charges (and more fines), will feel hopeless, realize that the ACO is corrupt and determined to kill his dog, and give up. But this dog owner did not give up. He didn't talk to the prosecutor, he went to court and presented his case to the judge...........and the prosecutor dropped all the "charges". And we believe that this is because the prosecutor knew he had no case against the dog owner, but wanted to euthanize the dog (because governments don't want big dogs in their community). So he and the ACO used many unethical tactics to harass the dog owner and discourage him from fighting for his dog. The prosecutor knew that once the dog owner was able to make his case in front of the judge, the dog owner would win. That's why he persuaded the dog owner to postpone the first hearing ----- so that the ACO would have more time to fabricate accusations and charges and to give the dog owner more citations to force him to feel hopeless and helpless so that he would voluntarily give his dog to the county so that it could be euthanized. This is just one example of how we help dog owners. No purchase necessary. We don't use Facebook messenger often. So please don't send messages and expect that we can help you via Facebook. You must call. We are open until 10:00pm EST, Monday through Friday. The weekend hours are on our website. You can also use our website to get instant quotes and information.

When a dog owner is stressed about trying to meet all of the animal control officer's requirements (to keep his dog after his dog was involved in an incident), he often fails to investigate the facts because he is overwhelmed with emotion. This is the case 99% of the time. That's where I believe we are a huge asset to customers -- because we listen and help dog owners navigate the requirements. We don't just try to sell a policy. As one example, a dog owner told us that he was fined more than $800 recently. We asked him to explain the fine. We thought maybe it was a "dog at large" fine. But he said that it was only the cost of kennel fees because the animal control officer had confiscated and impounded his dogs. He said that the court ordered him to pay a cost of $20 per day per dog (because that's the amount the animal control officer told the judge to charge). But that seemed very high. So we investigated the local laws and rules and discovered that the correct cost was only $8 per day per dog. The dog owner explained this error to the animal control officer and a court date was set to correct the fine which was about $600 less after being corrected. So we saved this dog owner $600. This is just one example of how we help dog owners. No purchase necessary. We don't use Facebook messenger often. So please don't send messages and expect that we can help you via Facebook. You must call. We are open until 10:00pm EST, Monday through Friday. The weekend hours are on our website. You can also use our website to get instant quotes and information.

Yes we have homeowner insurance for dog owners. To get started, fax, text, or email your current homeowner's insurance declarations page and contact telephone number! Include a note in which you explain that you own a dog and provide information about your dog's breed and history of bites. Fax: 703-997-5999; text: 707-706-DOGS (3647); email: [email protected].

DangerousDogInsurance.com (TM)'s cover photo

Preparing For Your Lawsuit: The Inside Scoop On The Tricks of Judges, Lawyers, And Court Clerks

The New Book Is Available For Free On Kindle From September 21 to September 25, 2015. It is titled, Preparing For Your Lawsuit. Here is the link: http://www.amazon.com/Preparing-Your-Lawsuit-Inside-Lawyers-ebook/dp/B015FJTSEO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1442865669&sr=8-2&keywords=preparing+for+your+lawsuit
After September 25, 2015, you can borrow it for free from a Kindle Owner's Lending Library or purchase from Kindle for $9.95. The paperback is $14.95.

amazon.com The Inside Scoop On the Tricks of Judges, Lawyers, and Court Clerks “A Handbook That Digs Into The Hidden Challenges Of Representing Yourself In Court.” The Author Is Not A Lawyer But Has Extensive Experience With The Courts And Their Clerks. This Book Will Help You Better Understan...

"Preparing For Your Lawsuit" by Chase Carmen Hunter

New Book Published: "Preparing For Your Lawsuit: The Tricks of Judges And Court Clerks". You can buy online at this link: https://www.createspace.com/5732229. It will be available on Kindle in 3 days. It describes the experiences of the author who is an insurance agent who has been persecuted by the government and others only because she helps dog owners obtain liability insurance. Another book is coming soon and will probably be titled, "The Truth About Dangerous Dog Insurance®"

createspace.com The Inside Scoop On the Tricks of Judges, Lawyers, and Court Clerks "A Handbook That Digs Into The Hidden Challenges Of Representing Yourself In Court." The Author Is Not A Lawyer But Has Extensive Experience With The Courts And Their Clerks. This Book Will Help You Better Understand The Many Ways t…

Customer Testimonials Can Be Found At www.ChaseAgency.com/testimonials.asp

PRAISES TO CUMBERLAND COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL IN FAYETTEVILLE NORTH CAROLINA

A dog was deemed potentially dangerous in June 2013. Cumberland County Animal Control gives positive reinforcement and reward to its dog owners. This is unlike, for example, the City of Jacksonville Florida, that charges dog owners criminally and offers to drop such charges only if the dog owner agrees to euthanize his dog. Cumberland County Animal Control educates and rewards its dog owners by giving the dog owners a chance to petition to have the "potentially dangerous dog" designation dropped after 6 months if the dog owner complies with the county's ordinances and has no incidents involving his dog.

The Texas Department of Insurance is anti-consumer and works to increase the cost of insurance for Texans. Go to http://www.chaseagency.com/kitzman.asp for more details.

Homeowner Mistake #4 :: Posting "Beware of Dog" Signs

A homeowner in Chaffee, Missouri, reported that her homeowner insurance company, Merrimack Mutual Insurance Company, cancelled her only because she posted "Beware of Dog" signs. The yard is fully fenced with a six-foot privacy fence; the dog is a bird dog, not classified as a "dangerous dog", and he has no history of aggression. She contacted American Family Insurance Company and was told that American Family Insurance Company also opposes the use of "Beware of Dog" signs. This issue arose because Merrimack Mutual Insurance Company sent an inspector to take photos of the property.

Go to http://www.ChaseAgecy.com/mistakes.asp for more information about common mistakes homeowners make

Sign An Executive Order That Assigns A Federal Agency The Responsibility To Regulate Large-Breed Dog

petitions.whitehouse.gov Dog owners can benefit from such federal regulation because it would establish consistency. It would prohibit local authorities from arbitrarily imposing requirements. For example, some TX localities demand proof of insurance that lists the dog on the policy by name but this requirement does not exi...

Wall of Shame Entry #7 :: Franklin, Louisiana :: April 2013

From http:/www.chaseagency.com/wallofshame.asp

Wall of Shame Entry #7 :: Franklin, Louisiana :: April 2013

A dog owner was required to carry liability insurance for her dogs only because there is an ordinance in Franklin, Louisiana that requires insurance for dogs that look like a Pit Bull breed. These dogs had never caused harm or trouble. There are no reports of them being loose or barking. But the dog owner could not afford to renew her policy. The dog warden confiscated the dogs and told the dog owner that they would hold the dogs for her and would not put them down. The dog owner purchased the insurance within about one month, I believe. When she went back to get her dogs, she was told that they were put down after 7 days. These dogs were harmless and they were killed needlessly. Make it a priority to stay compliant with the local ordinances. Don't take chances.

From http:/www.chaseagency.com/wallofshame.asp

Wall of Shame Entry #6 :: Indiana :: September 2012

Dear Ms. Michalos, President of St. Joseph County Indiana Humane Society:


I am a licensed insurance agent. A dog owner named [name removed] produced proof of insurance for her dogs to your Humane Society on about August 10, 2012. Officer DeCook did not feel good about the documents and faxed them, without first obtaining the insured dog owner's permission, to the Indiana Department of Insurance ("IDOI").


I participated in about 9 hours of hearings with the IDOI during the month of April 2013. The evidence and testimony prove that the insurance investigator, Ronda Ankney contacted [dog owner's] insurance company directly without first obtaining her permission. The evidence and testimony prove that the insurance company's policy did, in fact, cover [dog owner's] dogs and that the insurance company only cancelled [dog owner's] policy due to statements made by Ronda Ankney that were not based in fact and that were made without Ms. Ankney attempting first to conduct an investigation into the facts.


The hearings held were open to the public and were recorded by a court reporter. What I am telling you is a fact and is available to the public.


I had spoken briefly with Officer DeCook by telephone in 2012 and she was nothing less than hateful to me. She told me that the insurance investigator told her that [dog owner's] policy did not provide coverage for her dogs. But the fact is the policy in question did cover her dogs and was cancelled only due to unsupported statements made, in violation of her privacy rights, by Ronda Ankney to the insurance company that insured [dog owner].


I believe that [dog owner's] dogs were subsequently impounded and possibly euthanized despite only because she did not have the required insurance coverage. She did not have the required insurance coverage only due to Ronda Ankney's actions which caused the dog owner's policy to be cancelled. But the fact is that the policy the dog owner presented to your Humane Society had no exclusion for her dogs and did, in fact, cover her dogs.


I am suggesting that you refer to 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801-6809 because it establishes a person's right to privacy. Please, read 15 U.S.C. § 6809(4) because it defines what personal information is protected by this federal law. 12 U.S.C. § 1843 k(4)(B) establishes "insurance" transactions as protected under 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801-6809. State laws can, and often do, provide more privacy protection. In other words, the dog owner's insurance contract was a private contract and was protected by federal and state privacy laws. Officer DeCook violated the dog owner's right to privacy and tortiously interfered in her private contract when she faxed the dog owner's insurance documents to third parties without first obtaining the dog owner's permiss.


Officer DeCook was hateful in her approach to this situation and attacked me on the telephone when I called to discuss this with her. Officer DeCook had no interest in gaining an understanding. Her only interest was to attack the validity of the documents and report the insurance transaction as fraudulent to the IDOI without any valid reason to make such a report.


The best thing for Officer DeCook to do was to wait until the dog owner received her policy in the mail and request that the dog owner bring her policy in to the Humane Society for review. If Officer DeCook read the policy, she would have seen that the policy did, in fact, provide coverage for the dog owner's dog(s).


I would like to remind you that no person that works for your Humane Society has a right to contact an insurance company directly; especially if the insured's written permission is not first obtained. Also, if someone from your Humane Society does contact an insurance company with the insured's permission, that person has no right to demand any non-public information of or to provide non-public information to the insurance company even if the insured's permission is obtained. If someone from your Humane Society interferes with an insured's insurance contract with the intent of causing the insured's policy to be cancelled, that is tortious interference for which that person and your Humane Society can be liable. It is NOT part of Officer DeCook's job duty to violate a person's privacy rights and to tortiously interfere in her personal contracts.

Mistake #3 :: Thinking That Insurance Is A Solution To Your Concerns About Your Dog Liability Exposure

If you buy an insurance policy with a limit of $100,000 but you are sued for $2,000,000; your insurance policy will fall short of your needs. Most insurance policies do not cover punitive damages. And many jury awards include punitive damages. You will be required to pay the amount of the jury award that is not covered by insurance with your assets. Some states, counties, cities, and towns are criminally charging dog owners if their dog bites an animal or a person. So, a simple accident could render you a criminal, or worse, a felon. Pennsylvania once made violations of its dog control laws felonies. But I believe they changed their laws recently and violations are no longer felonies. Washington state once had a mandatory one year jail term if a dog owner violated the dog control laws. Those laws may still be in effect in Washington state. But no insurance policy can change your criminal record.

If your dog injuries a child, can you live with the guilt you might feel? No insurance policy will change the guilt you may have to live with for the rest of your life.

At all times, you must have the attitude that prevention of a dog-related injury is your first and last priority. Some people love their dog as if the dog is a child. And that's fine. But if you really love your dog, you will make sure that you prevent him from injuring others because some county, city, and town ordinances will require your dog to be euthanized as a consequence; and some will charge you with a felony.

Some insurance claims are fought in the courts for years. It is not uncommon that a lawsuit could easily continue for as long as ten years or more. And you will not be able to escape the constant need to appear for depostitions, court hearings, and more.

Mistake #2 :: Buying An "Insurance Policy" That Includes A Charge For "Surplus Lines" or "Excess Lines" Tax And Believing That You Have The Best Available Liability Insurance Coverage

An "insurance policy" that charges a "surplus lines" or "excess lines" tax is not an insurance policy. It is a "manuscript contract". It is not regulated by your state insurance regulator and is typically characterized by being very expensive, having a high deductible, and having language that makes if very unlikely that a claim would ever be covered.

Also, these types of "insurance policies" are almost always "claims made" contracts. This means that if your contract is effective from January 1, 2013, to January 1, 2014, the contract will not respond to a claim that occurred prior to January 1, 2014, if the claim is reported on January 2, 2014. Most claims are not reported until the day before the statute of limitations expires for filing a lawsuit. The statute of limitations varies by state but is typically one year or two years. Insurance policies that are not "claims made" are "occurrence" policies and a claim is subject to being covered if the claim occurred while the policy was in effect. So, if you have State Farm homeowner insurance until January 1, 2014, and you switch to Nationwide homeowner insurance on January 2, 2014, and the claim occurred prior to January 1, 2014, but was reported after January 1, 2014, State Farm would respond to the claim, not Nationwide. But if State Farm was a "claims made" contract (and I have never seen a "claims made" State Farm contract, I am just trying to illustrate a point), then neither State Farm nor Nationwide would respond to the claim and you would have no contract to rely upon to help defend you.

These type of contracts that charge a "surplus lines" or "excess lines" tax almost always have the feature by which the "limit of coverage is reduced by the cost of investigation and defense." This means that if you have a $100,000 contract limit, you have a claim, you are sued, the jury awards $100,000; you do not have $100,000 available to pay the jury award. You only have what is left over after the contract pays the investigators, the adjusters, and the lawyers. And frankly, that means that you could have only $20,000 left. So, the $80,000 of the jury award will have to be paid from your assets. Most insurance policies that do not charge a "surplus lines" or "excess lines" tax have limits of coverage that are not reduced by the cost of defense. I have never seen a "standard policy" (which is a policy that does not charge this tax) that has limits of coverage that are reduced by the cost of defense.

These type of contracts nearly never cover punitive damages. So, if a jury awards $6,000 in medical costs and $1,000,000 in punitive damages to punish you for being negligent; you will have to pay the $1,000,000 out of your assets. I have never seen a "surplus lines" contract that included coverage for punitive damages.

There are many other significant limitations to these "surplus lines" contracts. In fact, most state insurance regulators prohibit an insurance agent from selling a consumer a "surplus lines" contract unless that agent has attempted to find you a "standard" contract but was declined by three or more "standard" insurance companies.

Mistake #1 :: Calling Your Homeowner Insurance Company

Oftentimes, people want to know what their homeowner insurance policy covers. But reading the policy is too much of a hassle. So, they call their insurance agent. Big Mistake #1.

If a homeowner calls his insurance agent and asks, "Does my policy cover my dog? I am really concerned that my policy does not include dog bite coverage," the insurance agent hears this:

"I think I might have a dog bite claim soon," or

"I don't believe in preventing claims. I just want to know my insurance policy will handle it if I have a claim," or

"I don't believe that I should muzzle my dog. I don't believe that I should have to use a leash. I don't believe that I should have to confine my dog in a kennel to protect visitors. I don't believe that I should have to stay in the yard with my dog when I let him outside the house. I don't believe that I should have to take steps to prevent my dog from being taunted by the neighbor's kids. The kids' parents should control their children. I think I should have a right to take my dog to the dog park even though he has gotten in a few fights from time to time. But it was the other dogs that started the fights. The other dog owners should control their dogs."

In other words, the typical insurance agent will use your inquiry to suggest that your insurance policy be non-renewed or that you sign an exclusion for liability claims arising from your dog.

But the truth is that you have no reason to believe your dog will bite someone. You only contacted the insurance company because your accountant or your lawyer advised you to increase your liability coverage. Or maybe you contacted your insurance company only because a neighbor told you that your breed of dog is "blacklisted" and that you have no insurance coverage for your dog. But the way you asked the question of your insurance agent caused the insurance agent to become unduly alarmed.

And maybe you did read your homeowner insurance policy and found nothing relating to dogs and you assume that this means that your homeowner insurance policy has no liability coverage for your dog. But that is not true. Homeowner policies that are silent regarding liability coverage for your dog typically include liability coverage for your dog.

So, the fact is that your homeowner policy covered your dog and only because you called your homeowner insurance company and asked the question above, your homeowner policy is in jeopardy of non-renewal and/or is subject to a dog exclusion that you never would have had if you never called your insurance company in the first place.

Ok Team!! Listen Up!! As you may know, I have worked to reduce and eliminate statutory insurance requirements for dogs. The reason for this is because buying insurance is not the solution to concerns about injuries caused by dogs. Prevention is the key. Education on how to prevent injuries is the BEST and ONLY FIRST OPTION. We must promote responsible animal ownership. If we can show lawmakers that they don't need to regulate responsible animal ownership, they won't take their time regulating it. Self-regulation is the solution! However, everyone should buy at least $25,000 insurance when their dog is under 6 months old, regardless of their dog's breed. It's cheap and costs under $200 for most people.

PLEASE, DON'T TELL ME THAT YOUR DOG BIT AN 18-MONTH OLD ON THE FACE IN SELF-DEFENSE. PLEASE, DON'T TELL ME THAT THIS 18-MONTH-OLD SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER THAN TO TRY TO KISS THE DOG! AN 18-MONTH-OLD IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HER ACTIONS. AS THE DOG OWNER, YOU MUST MAKE THAT DISTINCTION AND MUST NOT TRY TO TEACH AN 18-MONTH OLD HOW TO BEHAVE AROUND YOUR DOG. CONFINE YOUR DOG IN A LOCKED ROOM AND PROTECT THE CHILD BECAUSE THE CHILD DOES NOT KNOW ANY BETTER AND CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO KNOW ANY BETTER!! STATEMENTS LIKE THIS ARE THE KIND OF STATEMENTS THAT PROMPT BREED-SPECIFIC LEGISLATION IN LIEU OF THE ABSENCE OF COMMON SENSE AMONGST DOG OWNERS. WE MUST ALL WORK TO END DOG DISCRIMINATION. THE FIRST STEP IN THAT IS PREVENTION AND COMMON SENSE...PLEASE!!!

GOOD NEWS FROM A CUSTOMER WHO BEAT THE DANGEROUS DOG RAP!!

Hi Chase

I just wanted to let you know I beat the dangerous dog wrap they tried to give my dog. We spoke on the phone in October about the incident?

Anyways, I paid the vet bills for the jack russel terrier. And the other owner and I got along.

Animal control was a bunch of...well, you know. I found a lawyer who does ALOT of dangerous dog work in Florida.

His name is Fred Kray if you're interested

http://www.dangerousdoglaw.com

He helped me work through the process. In the end, animal control dropped the case against my dog because of how badly they handled everything.

Thanks for talking to me about the whole incident. I really had no idea how f-d up animal control and dangerous dog ordinances can be.

Cheers,

Customers' Name Kept In Confidence

PLEASE, FRIENDS, DON'T MISUNDERSTAND! WE LOVING SAVING YOUR PETS. BUT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN A DOG SHOULD BE HUMANELY EUTHANIZED. IF A DOG BITES A PERSON, EUTHANIZATION SHOULD ALWAYS BE A CONSIDERATION. ACCIDENTS HAPPEN. AND SOME ACCIDENTS SHOULD BE FORGIVEN AND FORGOTTEN. BUT SOME INCIDENTS MUST BE ACCEPTED FOR WHAT THEY REALLY ARE WHICH IS A DOG ATTACK. IF A DOG BITES A PERSON ONLY BECAUSE IT IS STARTLED OR ABRUPTLY AWOKEN, THIS IS A SERIOUS CONCERN. BEING "STARTLED" IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING "PROVOKED". BEING PROVOKED MEANS THAT THE DOG WAS BEING ABUSED AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT.

IMPORTANT TIP FOR DOG OWNERS!! By Law, Most States Allow An Insurance Company To Cancel Your Policy For Any Reason Within The First 60 Days Of Policy Issuance. If You Ever Contact Your Insurance Company Directly At Any Time, Not Just Within The First 60 Days; You May End Up Revealing Information That They Will Use Against You And May Cancel You Without Justification. I Have Seen It Happen. This Is How Some Insurance Companies Are Operating. Their Policies Cover Your Dogs, But Any Little Hint That You May Have A Chance Of Of Having A Claim Will Cause Alarm And Cancellatn. The Reality Is That There Is An Irrational Fear Of Dogs In Our Society. Always Contact My Office For Assistance; I Don't Work For The Insurance Company. I Work For You.

IMPORTANT TIP FOR DOG OWNERS WHOSE DOG IS IN POLICE CUSTODY DUE TO A BITE INCIDENT!! Most Of The Time, If You Try To Appeal The "Dangerous Dog" Designation, You Will Lose. In The Meantime, The Police Will Keep Your Dog In Doggy Jail Until All You Are Done Appealing And You Accept The Dangerous Dog Designation. Kennel Fees Will Escalate During This Time. The Cost Of Getting Your Dog Back Could Exceed Your Abiliy To Pay And Your Dog Is Euthanized. If It Is A Fact That Your Dog Injured Someone (You Witnessed It), Comply With The Police Requirements For Freeing Your Dog. After You Get Your Dog Back, You Can Seek Civil Remedies If You Believe You Have Been Wronged. Also, For Those Of You On A Tight Budget Who Can't Afford The Costs Associated, Consider Donating Blood. You Get Paid, You Have Plenty Of It, And It's Great For The Person Who Gets Your Blood Donation.

www.DangerousDogInsurance.com Starting At Only $155 Per Year

Welcome to www.DangerousDogInsurance.com . Feel Free To Post Photos Of Your Handsome Dogs!! We Would Love To See Them! Also, If You Are Experiencing Any Unfair Treatment By Your Dog Warden, Judge, Or Prosecutor; Let Us Know So That We Can Put A Spotlight On Him. When A Dark Situations Can't Exist In The Light. Turn The Light On And Darkness Disappears.

dangerousdoginsurance.com Dangerouse Dog And Dog Bite Insurance Starting At $155 Per Year For All Breeds of Dogs Including Dogs with No Bite History, Dogs Deemed Dangerous or Vicious Dogs, Police Dogs, Seeing-Eye Dogs, and All Other Dogs