Q: My original question was addressed by William Light. I don't see how to respond to him. Pls see below my reply to him.

A: I, Thomas Grossman, partly answered this question a couple days ago. Insurance companies are in business to make money, not to help people resolve claims. This case is more complicated than most, because it was not a typical car v. car case, but instead a car v. dog case. I don't know which part of your coverage your insurance company is basing its decision on. Perhaps you can find out. They appear to be treating this case under your liability coverage, when they might be able to apply your "collision" coverage to the case. That's the best I can do.

A: Your insurer has discretion to adjust your claim and to determine fault. The only limitation is its duty to act toward you in good faith and fair dealing. There is no case law on your particular fact pattern because what you pose is a factual question which would, if necessary, be decided by a jury. The allocation of fault would not be the subject of a published decision written by a judge.

As for the decision itself, I do not see the basis for a bad faith suit. There is plenty of justification to conclude that you were at fault, at least in part. There are many defensive driving maneuvers that and could have been employed short of driving into a tree. There is time, from the moment of the dog's emergence from the shrubs until it enters your pathway, to recognize the hazard and to decide upon a course of action. For example, if you were driving as slowly as you say, a hard tap on the brakes could have allowed the animal to clear the path of your vehicle. It is hard to conceive of a dog moving so fast that you had no opportunity to brake your slow moving vehicle at all. Your decision was to run into a tree. Also, course correction after the animal was clear of the vehicle could have prevented running into a tree. There was certainly a period of time between the moment when the dog was clear of the vehicle and when you hit the tree. In those precious moments, you had the opportunity to regain control of your slow moving vehicle, but did not. The lack of signage of animal crossings is a complete red herring. I have been driving for probably 35 years, across almost every state and most of the provinces of Canada. I have never seen a dog crossing sign. Yet, I am aware, in residential neighborhoods, that dogs are almost always present, although usually on leashes. Nevertheless, the lack of such signage is not evidence that you were not negligent.

Maybe these are just theories and the collision could not have been avoided. Ultimately, that is not the point. The issue is whether the insurer exceeded its discretion in concluding that you were at fault, not whether it is wrong. It would be hard to convince a jury that an insurer was acting in "bad faith" by asserting that you were at fault for running into a tree. Also, any action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing must be supported by damages. A premium increase would not justify such a claim. Take your business to another insurer with more favorable rates.