Insurance article - Wall Street Journal

[Rene Allegrini]

RealEstateJournal | Canine Mutiny: Dog Owners Fight Insurers Over Insurance Practice

"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."

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.

[LavenderRott]

You know, I was giving this some thought the other night and insurance companies are getting a bit out of hand. Or maybe it is just life in general that is getting out of hand.

Your choice of where to live, and for some, what type of companion animal is in your home is decided by your insurance company.

When you get sick, which doctor you see and what type of medication or treatment is available is up to your insurance company.

What type of car you drive depends on your insurance compamy.

Seems like we are having to make a lot of personal decisions based on the opinion of someone that we are giving hundreds of dollars to every year.

I am proud to live in a state that has taken some of the power back, yet disappointed that there are so many cities here with BSL.

[Rubyhead]

Personally, I'd love it every dog owner had to get their dog CGC'd. Then maybe there wouldn't be such an insurance problem because, on the whole, owners would be better trained 'dog owners'. But then, as LavenderRott has pointed out it would be another, maybe not quite a 'restriction' but a crimp on ones personal choice.

Maybe we should all just move to New Hampshire and "Live Free or Die"
We could change the licence plate to read............
The Rottweiler State :->

[LavenderRott]

Well, LavenderRott is starting to think that maybe a puppy class should be a requirement for registration and pet stores, shelters, and rescues should be required to send paperwork to the city clerk for the city that a puppy/dog's new owner lives in. Not as a restriction but as a method of making sure that new dogs are being registered. One should be able to send these postage free with the city picking up the tab.

I don't know, maybe I need more sleep.

[Baxter's Mom]

What about insurance companies and rental communties? Allegedly, it's the insurance company who puts restrictions on the apartment rental communties are the "aggressive breed list." That should be the next step, because really, finding a place to live that will accept a rottweiler is alot of drama, no saying anything in life should be easy, but having a choice of one apartment stinks.

[LavenderRott]

Originally Posted by Baxter's Mom

What about insurance companies and rental communties? Allegedly, it's the insurance company who puts restrictions on the apartment rental communties are the "aggressive breed list." That should be the next step, because really, finding a place to live that will accept a rottweiler is alot of drama, no saying anything in life should be easy, but having a choice of one apartment stinks.

I know! Michigan is one of those states that won't allow breed restrictions on insurance, yet apartments use insurance as an excuse to not rent to people with pits and rottweilers.

[shybird]

Originally Posted by Rubyhead

Maybe we should all just move to New Hampshire and "Live Free or Die"
We could change the licence plate to read............
The Rottweiler State :->

Maybe you might want to make the move to New Jersey. The bill was passed here

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp

[rottix2]

Thanks for posting this. I am forwarding a copy of the article to my two state representatives and also to one of our congressmen. I have spoken to a couple of them already about this issue and want to make sure they know I have not forgotten or lost interest.

[Gunsey'sMom]

"I can have a gun, but I can't have a Chow. That's kind of crazy," she said.

I think that says it all for me....

And referring to the article the dog was a Chow Mix-Where does it stop!!!!!!!??

[Greys33]

I've been looking into getting a Rott for about 3 months now and this may cause me to change my homeowners insurance, cars insurance, motorcycle insurance, personal property insurance and life insurance policies which I personally don't mind doing. I spoke to my insurance agent a couple of days ago (AllState) and she told me to wait until we had bought our new house and had it inspected before buying the dog because if they found out that we had a dog, they would refuse or drop us. Time to go and follow up with Statefarm.

[shybird]

Originally Posted by Greys33

I've been looking into getting a Rott for about 3 months now and this may cause me to change my homeowners insurance, cars insurance, motorcycle insurance, personal property insurance and life insurance policies which I personally don't mind doing. I spoke to my insurance agent a couple of days ago (AllState) and she told me to wait until we had bought our new house and had it inspected before buying the dog because if they found out that we had a dog, they would refuse or drop us. Time to go and follow up with Statefarm.

You are correct, it is time for you to leave the insurance company that won't insure you because of breed of dog. Find the new company and then tell the old company go to heck and why. Make sure you tell them that you don't even have the breed of dog, but that you won't give them money because of their bias attitude. It is time that insurance companies wise up. The only way to get them to pay attention is through their lost revenue. Loosing enough business may make them notice their own stupidity.

[jakesfostermom]

Originally Posted by Greys33

Time to go and follow up with Statefarm.

Just make sure you take the time to tell your former insurance company WHY you are leaving them and preferrably in writing to the home office - not just your local agent, who could throw it in the trash.

[JuneyB]

Shouldnt we also tell the insurance company that we are moving to that is is because of their nonbreed restrictive policy? and as a result they get our house insurance, car insurance,life insurance etc etc

The idea of all that extra business might just keep them from changing their tune in the future.

Just a thought

[shybird]

Originally Posted by JuneyB

Shouldnt we also tell the insurance company that we are moving to that is is because of their nonbreed restrictive policy? and as a result they get our house insurance, car insurance,life insurance etc etc

The idea of all that extra business might just keep them from changing their tune in the future.

Just a thought

Yes, absolutely tell them why you are rewarding them with your business.