|
CONSUMER NEWS RECALLS COMPLAINT FORM SCAM ALERTS |
| Small Claims Guide | Class Actions | Lemon Law | FAQ | Resources | Newsletters | Spanish | |
|
|
![]() |
Pet Food Company Denies Claim for Dead DogNutro's Insurance Disclaims Responsibility for Sandyboy's Demise |
||||||
|
By Lisa Wade McCormick July 10, 2007
That’s the message a grieving Arizona pet owner received on Monday from the insurance carrier for Nutro Products, one of the companies involved in the nationwide pet food recall. Pet owner Jerri L. filed a claim with the company to recoup the $700 in vet bills she incurred trying to save her 13-year-old Sheltie, Sandyboy. As ConsumerAffairs.com first reported in April, Sandyboy suddenly went into kidney failure after eating one of the recalled Nutro Max foods. “He was a perfectly healthy dog and then I put him on that food, and boom, within two weeks, he was gone,” Jerri told us. “His immediate symptoms were going off by himself, being very lethargic, and not eating or drinking as much as he did. Then he started getting diarrhea and wouldn’t take in any fluids. “Our vet confirmed he went into complete kidney failure and there was no reason for his kidneys to fail. We had to make the difficult decision to put him to sleep.” That happened in May 2006 — ten months before Menu Foods recalled 60 million containers of melamine-tainted pet food. Jerri, however, is convinced that Sandyboy’s death is linked to the Nutro Max pet food. “All our other dogs ate Pedigree and they’re fine. He’s the only one who got sick. He was a healthy 13-year-old dog until he started eating that food. So yes, I’m certain there’s a connected between the food and his death.” The Hartford insurance company disagrees. “Our investigation has determined that our insured is not responsible for this very unfortunate incident,” the company wrote in a letter to Jerri. “The basis for this decision is in light of the fact that while your pet may have consumed some of the recalled product, testing of your pet has revealed that your pet was not ill (or the illness is not related to the recalled pet food). “Accordingly, there is no property damage as a result of the insured’s product. Based upon the above, this will advise that there is no legal liability on the part of Nutro Products, Inc. for the alleged damages.” Not Giving Up
She plans to join one of the class action lawsuits filed in connection with the pet food recall. “I want my $700 and I want an admission by the company that they were wrong,” the Goodyear, Arizona woman told us today. “I don’t think anyone did this (contaminated the pet food) purposely. But I think the company needs to take care of what occurred.” She adds: “It makes me sick to think that I killed my dog. I could barely live with decision to put him down and now to think I may have killed him inadvertently. I could have taken it if he’d died of old age. But not this … I’m just heartsick over this whole thing.” The Food and Drug Administration discovered two ingredients used to make the recalled pet foods -- wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate -- contained melamine. That chemical is not approved for use in pet or human food; it’s used to make plastics and pesticides. FDA officials traced the melamine-tainted ingredients to two companies in China, which exported the products to the United States. Those Chinese companies are now closed. Since March, Menu Foods and other pet food makers have recalled more than 5,600 pet food products sold under at least 100 brand names—making this one of the largest pet food recalls in U.S. history. “This whole thing has gotten so crazy,” Jerri says. “I don’t feel safe giving my other six dogs commercial foods anymore. That’s why I’m looking at giving them natural foods.” Report Your Experience
|
||||||
Back to the top | |
|||||||
Advertisement
|
Home |
Complaint Form |
News |
Recalls |
FAQ |
|
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2008 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|