It Is Easy To Keep Your Dog Out Of Trouble!
In Most Cases, A Dog Gets In Trouble ONLY After Being Loose. Don't Let Your Dog Get Loose!
***NOTICE*** Some Customers Are Reporting That They Are Being Told By Their Dog Wardens That Proof Of Insurance From "Chase" Will Not Be Accepted Because "Chase" Has Taken Money From People And Not Issued The Insurance Coverage. This IS NOT TRUE. Many Dog Wardens Are Making This False Statement To Force The Dog Owners To Seek To Buy Their Insurance From Another Agency That Is More Expensive. Some Dog Wardens Knowingly Mislead Dog Owners Because They Want To Limit The Buying Choices Of Dog Owners To The Most Expensive Choices So That Dog Owners Who Cannot Afford The Most Expensive Insurance Will Be Forced To Put Their Dogs Down.
Wall of Shame Entry #10 :: Cowlitz County, Washington :: July 2013
A dog owner was told that once she is served with papers that state that her dog is deemed dangerous, she has 72 hours to purchase the insurance required by state law; otherwise, the police will impound her dog and euthanize him after 10 days. But the truth is that the county ordinance states that the dangerous dog designation is not final until 15 days after the papers are served and that if a dog is impounded, the dog owner has 20 days to comply with the law and to get his dog out of the impound. Therefore, the dog owner has 15 days to purchase the insurance to avoid the dog being impounded and 20 more days to avoid the dog's euthanization. In Cowlitz County, the ordinance states a dog owner can put his dog in a licensed dog boarding facility without first notifying the police of the location of the dog. Therefore, if a dog owner is threatened with having his dog impounded if he doesn't buy insurance in 72 hours and he cannot convince the police that he has 15 days to purchase the insurance, one option to avoid having his dog impounded could involve putting the dog in a registered/licensed dog boarding facility until he buys the insurance. The county ordinance is posted online. Read it and understand it. Get an attorney's help. But do everything you can to comply within the time-frame given even if it conflicts with the actual ordinance because judges often rule against the dog owner and dog owners often have little chance of winning even when they are right and the police are wrong. However, most dog owners who have problems such as this have them only because their dog got loose and out of their control. Don't let your dog get out of your control and you can save you and your dog a lot of headache!!
Wall of Shame Entry #9 :: Hereford, Texas :: July 2013
The local dog warden set a trap to catch a stray dog. The trap was set near a dog owner's back yard. The trap caught a dog that was not a stray. The dog warden later said that the dog "resisted" him during the time after it had been trapped and brought to the animal shelter. The dog warden deemed this dog dangerous only because it resisted him. It did not bark at him, did not bite him, did not lunge at him, and did not growl at him.
Wall of Shame Entry #8 :: City of Auburn, Washington :: July 2013
A dog owner in the City of Auburn, Washington, was given incorrect information in writing by the local police. The insurance requirements typed out on the paperwork given to the dog owner by the local police did not match the actual correct information found in the city ordinance. Specifically, there were two places where the paperwork omitted the word "OR". Therefore, the dog owner thought he needed two or three types of insurance when he really needed only one. Also, the first option for the dog owner suggested that he get a $250,000 surety bond. But there is not a single insurance company in the United States that will issue such a surety bond. So, the typical dog owner doesn't know this and starts making dozens of telephone calls looking for an insurance agent that offers surety bonds for dog owners and is repeatedly turned away. The typical dog owner will be frustrated by the idea that he just can't find the surety bond he needs to keep his dog alive. Some dog owners feel helpless and hopeless and let the police euthanize their dogs. But the second option suggests that the dog owner get an insurance policy with a limit of $250,000. And that is possible!! So, just skip over the surety bond suggestion! There is light at the end of the tunnel!
Wall of Shame Entry #7 :: in the 806 area code of Texas and Snohomish County, Washington:: July 2013
A dog owner in Texas needed to purchase liability insurance for her dog. The dog warden told her that all companies that she will find on the internet that offer insurance for dogs are a scam. This is not true. In fact, I have never heard of such a scam. But the least expensive options can be found online. There are some dog wardens that will give you incorrect information to frustrate you as you attempt to comply with the insurance requirements. The Snohomish County, Washington, employees that administer the requirements for dog owners have told dog owners in the past that ChaseAgency.com is a "hoax". Snohomish County employees have been known to tell dog owners that there is only one insurance agency in the country that offers insurance for dogs. And that particular insurance agency which is located in Florida, was charging about $2900 per year per dog and demanded the full premium in full, up front. In addition, that agency in Florida was not licensed to transact insurance in Washington (and may not be licensed in Washington at this time). The policy I offer costs somewhere between $200 and $700 per year. Snohomish County employees have made such false statements to steer dog owners away from the cheapest insurance option to the most expensive option offered by an unlicensed insurance agency because they want to make it cost-prohibitive for dog owners to comply with the insurance requirements so that the county can euthanize the dog(s). Be aware that sometimes the dog warden is giving you incorrect information and you should consider getting a lawyer to help you. You should know your local laws and verify the statements your dog warden makes.
Wall of Shame Entry #6 :: 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.
Wall of Shame Entry #5 :: 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.
Wall of Shame Entry #4 :: Defiance County, Ohio :: February 2011
A Pit Bull got loose and was hit by a car. The person who hit the dog did not call
animal control or stop to assist the animal. The dog died. The next day, the driver called his auto insurance company
to report damage to his car. His insurance company called the dog warden to report the dog owner's
failure to confine the "vicious dog". The dog warden gave the dog owner a citation for failure to confine and another one
for failure to insure the "vicious dog" which was dead. While the dog owner may be paritially
responsible for the damage to the
driver's car; it is not outside the realm of possibility that the driver is also responsible for
contributing to the damage to his own car and to the death of the dog.
Had he not been driving more than the speed limit, perhaps he could have avoided colliding
with the dog. And there were no signs that the car tried to avoid colliding with the dog (such as skid marks).
Also, the driver did not stop
to assist the dog or call animal control at any time to
get help for the dog. Such behavior can be easily classified as "animal cruelty". While no one person can be
blamed fully for this unfortunate situation; only the dog owner was given a citation.
The driver who hit the dog
and left it in the ditch to die without calling for help was not cited for animal
cruelty or any motor vehicle violation
for exceeding the speed limit.
Wall of Shame Entry #3 :: Abiline, Texas :: February 2011
***UPDATE*** September 2013: The City of Abilene, Texas, seems to have improved significantly with their handling of dog owners. It seems as if the dog owners need only to provide valid proof of
insurance and that the City of Abilene is being more cautious in respecting the rights of dog owners.
February 2011: A city attorney, Andrea Jackson, talked directly with the dog owner's insurance agent without first getting a signed release from the dog owner. She defended this by saying
that the insurance agent called her. She did not call him. Either way, this was a violation
of the dog owner's federal and state rights to privacy. The city attorney, Andrea Jackson, stated that during the phone
conversation, the insurance agent asked, "Does the dog have a history of biting?" The
city attorney told us at one point that she said that she did not know; that she was just
a city attorney and does not work in the dog warden's department and all she does is
review insurance policies. She said that the insurance agent said that he would not insure
the dog because it had a "history" of biting. So, I then asked the city attorney,
"Why would the insurance agent say that if you did not tell him that the dog did have a
history of biting?" Realizing that she had been caught in a lie, she then changed
her story. She said that she told the insurance agent that she would not be involved
unless the dog did have a "history" of biting. But she should not have said this.
Being an attorney (only since 2008), she should know that she should have said nothing unless she
first had a signed release from the dog owner. If she did have this release, she
should have responded only with the facts. And the fact is that this canine does
not have a "history" of biting.
The insurance agent had already issued the policy. Because the city attorney implied that the dog had a "history" of biting, which was
not true, the city attorney caused the dog owner's insurance policy to be cancelled.
Keep in mind that the insurance agent would not have called the city attorney unless
he was first aware that the insurance was required by law. The
insurance is only required by law in Texas if there has been some prior incident with the
public and the dog has been deemed dangerous. According to this city attorney, the
insurance agent called her to ask her what kind of language she needed to see in
order to release the dog to its owner since the policy would not be ready for three weeks.
Insurance agents who offer this insurance know that when insurance is required by law it
coincides with a "dangerous dog" or "vicious dog" label. They also know that a dog being
held in police custody until valid proof of insurance is provided is a dog that has been
deemed dangerous. So, the insurance agent, if he was not willing to insure such a dog,
would not have called the city attorney to find out what was needed to satisfy the city
so that this dog could be released and would not have cancelled the policy only because it had been deemed dangerous.
And the only reason why this dog owner's policy was cancelled is because Andrea Jackson
said that the dog had a history of biting when it did not. Texas deems dogs
dangerous for non-bite incidents. There was one minor incident with this dog in which
a woman claimed to have been bitten but who had no injury and no medical treatment.
There is absolutely no proof of a bite. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR PEOPLE IN AUTHORITY TO
SAY THINGS TO AN INSURANCE AGENT THAT ARE PHRASED IN BIASED WAYS TO PROMOTE POLICY
CANCELLATION SO THAT THE DOG OWNER BECOMES UNINSURABLE AND MUST PUT HIS DOG DOWN.
THERE IS A LOT OF PREJUDICE AGAINST LARGE DOGS. KEEP IN MIND THAT THOSE IN AUTHORITY
ARE VIOLATING YOUR FEDERAL AND STATE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY IF THEY DO MAKE DIRECT CONTACT WITH YOUR INSURANCE
COMPANY OR AGENT WITHOUT YOUR SIGNED RELEASE AND YOU CAN SEEK DAMAGES
Within one week after Andrea Jackson caused the dog owner's first policy to be cancelled by
providing untrue information to the insurance agent, she rejected a second policy presented by the dog
owner but did not give any specific reason why. She said only that the policy "wasn't going to work". A day or two later,
when I asked Ms. Jackson to explain why this policy wasn't going to work,
she asked me to send her a copy of the policy so that she could explain.
So, obviously, Andrea Jackson did not remember specifically why, did not take notes on why,
and did not make a copy of the policy to document why she rejected the policy.
THE POLICY ANDREA JACKSON REJECTED FOR NO SPECIFIC REASON
HAS BEEN ISSUED IN THE RECENT PAST IN ABILENE, TEXAS, AND APPROVED.
AND TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY, THE DOG IN QUESTION WAS DEEMED DANGEROUS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
When Daniel Santee, the top city attorney in Abilene, Texas, finally explained in writing why the policy was rejected,
he made untrue, bizarre statements. He said, "the section in question excludes coverage if you, the owner, knew or should have known that the animal could harm someone."
First, there is no such section in the policy.
However, there is a section that states that anything that is expected or
intended is not covered. This
language is found in every liability insurance policy so that the
insurance cannot be relied upon if the insured is sued for murder or arson, for example.
Also there is absolutely no reason why the dog owner should believe, expect, or intend his dog will ever hurt anyone in the future. In fact, the opposite is true:
the dog owner has built a kennel and taken many other precautions to prevent any future problems. Even if
Daniel Santee
has a crystal ball and can see the future, he cannot make any statement with
certainty that this dog owner
knows there will be a future incident invovling his dog or that he expects or intends for his dog to ever hurt anyone.
CONTACT
WWW.LANWT.ORG (LEGAL AID OF NORTHWEST TEXAS) IF YOU ARE A VICTIM
OF SIMILAR HARASSMENT BY THE CITY ATTORNEY IN ABILENE TEXAS
Wall of Shame Entry #2 :: Rankin County, Mississippi (Brandon) :: February 2011
This county has an ordinance that requires all owners of Pit Bulls to have $100,000 of insurance. A resident has a Pit Bull with no history of aggression or of biting. While he was at church, local authorities entered his yard without prior notice and without a search warrant and confiscated his Pit Bull because it was not insured. They will not release his dog to him until he buys insurance. He bought insurance from me. I provided a binder and a letter that explained that the policy covers owned canines. But this was not good enough. The Board of Supervisors demanded he provide a full copy of the policy. They also stated that the Board only meets once per week. So, once he provides a copy of the policy, he will have to wait at least one additional week for the Board of Supervisors to review his policy with no guarantee that they will approve it. In the meantime, they are charging him daily kennel fees. OBVIOUSLY, THE AUTHORITIES IN RANKIN COUNTY HAVE NEVER READ THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION THAT PROHIBITS THE TAKING ON ONE'S PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. OR MAYBE THEY READ THE CONSTITUTION AND KNOW THAT THEY ARE VIOLATING PEOPLE'S CIVIL RIGHTS BUT THINK THAT THE RESIDENTS OF RANKIN COUNTY ARE TOO STUPID TO KNOW BETTER AND WON'T STAND UP FOR THEIR RIGHTS. MANY PEOPLE IN AUTHORITY ARE VIOLATING PEOPLE'S CIVIL RIGHTS BY TAKING THEIR DOGS THAT HAVE NO HISTORY OF AGGRESION WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. YOU CAN PUT A STOP TO IT. WRITE YOUR STATE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ADVISE HIM THAT YOU WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS.
Wall of Shame Entry #1 :: Perry County, Ohio :: January 2011
A Dog Warden And Judge Want To Put A Dog Owner In Jail (And Allowed Her To Plead Guilty Without Legal Representation When She Qualifies For Public Defender) Because She Did Not Buy An Insurance Policy From A Specific Insurance Agency. The Dog Warden Told Her That No Policy Purchased Elsewhere Would Be Accepted. But She Could Not Afford That Policy And Did Not Buy It. She Bought A Cheaper Policy From Chase Carmen Hunter Insurance. But The Judge Said That The Policy She Purchased Is Too Cheap And The Dog Owner Must Buy The More Expensive Policy. He Asked Her, "How Much Did You Pay For That Policy?" She Responded, "$138". He Said, "That's Not Going To Cut It. You Need The $800 Policy. If You Don't Come Back Next Week With The $800 Policy, I Am Going To Put You In Jail." But I Wrote To The Judge & The Dog Owner Is Not In Jail Yet. The Judge Deferred Sentencing & Told The Dog Warden To "Check" My Insurance Despite The Fact That The Dog Owner Had The Actual Policy IN HER HAND and the policy speaks for itself. It Is Indisputable That The Insurance Policy Provided The Required Coverage.
Chase Carmen Hunter, www.ChaseAgency.com, and Chase Financial Services Since 1993 offer services to residents of any country in the world including the following states of the United States of America:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Not all products are available in all states.