Homeowners are beginning to rebel against insurers who discriminate against them for owning a certain breed. And quite rightly so. What they should be discriminating against is bad and irresponsible owners.
From The Wall Street Journal:
Canine Mutiny: Dog Owners Fight Insurers
State Lawmakers Aim to Stop Practice of Denying Coverage To Homes With Certain Breeds
By M. P. MCQUEEN
June 1, 2006; Page D1
Dog owners are biting back at the insurance industry.
There is a push by lawmakers and animal-welfare groups to ban the growing insurance-industry practice of refusing to write homeowners' policies for people who own dogs of certain breeds.
Some big insurers, including Allstate Corp. and Farmers Insurance Group, won't cover homes in some states if certain breeds are present. Others exclude the breeds from liability coverage or charge extra for it. The so-called vicious-breed lists include such popular pooches as German shepherds, Akitas and Siberian huskies, along with Alaskan Malamutes, Chow Chows, Doberman Pinschers, American pit bull terriers and their cousins.
The practice is spurring rising complaints by dog owners that their homeowners' and renters' policies have been dropped, or they have been denied coverage, because their dog is on the list. They say the rules unfairly link well-behaved family pets with aggressive miscreants responsible for high-profile attacks.
At least nine states, including Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin, now have bills pending that would prevent insurance companies from dropping or refusing customers because of their dog's breed. In Massachusetts, a proposed bill has been set aside for further study. (Insurance rules and rates are state-regulated.) In 2003, the Michigan insurance commissioner issued an administrative ruling banning the practice in that state. The legislation is supported by animal-welfare organizations including the Humane Society of the United States, the American Kennel Club, and local pet and breeders' advocacy groups.
Insurers, who mostly oppose legislative efforts to alter their dog-breed policies, argue that government public-health studies and their own claims histories indicate that some breeds are more dangerous than others, and therefore pose higher risk of claims for injury and loss. Limiting insurers' exposure to those risks helps keep premiums more affordable for everyone, insurance officials say.
For owners of these breeds, the insurers' rules seem infuriatingly arbitrary. Terri Becker of Lake Arrowhead, Calif., said she has been turned down for coverage by several insurers recently. Ms. Becker, who owns three mixed-breed dogs, says The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., refused her application last year because one of the dogs was part-Chow.
"I can have a gun, but I can't have a Chow. That's kind of crazy," she said.
A spokesman for The Hartford, Joe Loparco, said that the company won't provide new coverage in most states to owners of Presa Canarios, Rottweilers and pit bulls, but that Chows aren't excluded. He also said that without knowing the specifics of the case, he couldn't address Ms. Becker's complaint.
The insurance battle comes as debate is erupting in cities, states, and courtrooms over whether to target certain breeds. More than 100 counties and cities have passed ordinances since 1991 banning or restricting ownership of specific breeds -- especially pit bulls -- or requiring that owners carry large amounts of liability insurance. This year through March alone, 65 such measures were proposed, far outpacing the number for the same period last year, according to the AKC. Dog owners and animal-rights groups have challenged many of these laws in court, and some laws have been struck down. In March, an appeals court in Ohio ruled that local and state laws banning or restricting ownership of pit-bull dogs were unconstitutionally vague.
Some pet advocates and insurance officials say companies started blacklisting breeds shortly after a series of highly publicized dog attacks, such as the Diane Whipple case. Ms. Whipple, 33, was mauled to death in 2001 by a neighbor couple's Presa Canario, a fighting breed that is often snubbed by insurers. The case is regarded as a landmark because the dog owners were convicted of manslaughter in connection with the vicious attack.
Dogs bite an estimated 4.7 million people in the United States annually, 800,000 seriously enough to require medical attention. About 40% of victims are children. Dog bites were responsible for $317.2 million in claims in 2005, an average of more than $21,000 each. They comprise 15% of liability claims, which in turn are about 4% of total claims, according to the Insurance Information Institute, a nonprofit industry research and information group. Homeowner and rental policies typically provide between $100,000 and $300,000 of liability coverage for dog bites.
Some insurers cite a 2000 study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of 20 years of fatal attacks by dogs on humans. It found that pit-bull-related breeds and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of the 238 dog-attack deaths between 1979 and 1998.
But the study's authors, including Julie Gilchrist, say that public and private policymakers have drawn flawed conclusions from it. Dr. Gilchrist said the study wasn't designed to determine which are the most dangerous dog breeds and didn't establish bite-fatality rates for the breeds it named. "You can't say that one breed is more likely to bite (than another)," she said.
Dr. Gilchrist, a pediatrician, said the involvement of some breeds in more attacks may reflect the sheer prevalence of those breeds. Other factors, such as training and neutering, are more relevant than breed, she said, noting that owners choose and train some dogs for aggression. The CDC has posted a notice on its Web site trying to discourage lawmakers and others from using the study to ban specific breeds.
Adam Goldfarb, issues specialist for the Humane Society of the United States, agrees. "According to the CDC, more than 70% of the dogs involved in attacks are unneutered males," he said. "No other statistic is as big as that." Mr. Goldfarb said the Humane Society might support insurability criteria that looked at whether a dog has been spayed or neutered, has been obedience-trained, or is chained outside (a factor in many attacks.)
Some longtime dog owners said they had owned controversial breeds for years without incident when insurance companies suddenly decided to cut them loose. Veterinarian Gary Lainer of Canton, Mass., said six of his clients had been dropped by insurers recently, including a Rottweiler owner in a crime-ridden section of Brockton who had bought the dog to help make his home safer. Most eventually found coverage but they had to pay "much, much more," Mr. Lainer said.
Not every insurer limits coverage for owners of certain breeds. State Farm Insurance Cos., the largest issuer of homeowner policies in the U.S., and Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Allianz AG, don't consider the breed of dog when issuing policies.
Meanwhile, Farmers Insurance Group, the third-largest home insurer by market share, excludes several dog breeds from coverage in five of the 41 states in which it does business. The company has had "above average losses" connected with dogs of those breeds in those states, said spokeswoman Mary Flynn. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., the fourth-largest insurer, also has a list of banned breeds, but owners can be exempted by having their dog pass an American Kennel Club-approved "Canine Good Citizenship" test.
Specialty insurers known as "excess and surplus lines" carriers, which tend to charge more for coverage, seldom exclude dogs from coverage by breed, said Dave Evans, senior vice president of the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers Association of the United States, a trade group. With many companies offering homeowners insurance, consumers should shop around, perhaps with the help of an independent insurance agent, who can compare policies from various companies.
Write to M. P. McQueen at mari.mcqeen@wsj.com1
[dogs]
[dog news]
[dog training]
No comments:
Post a Comment