 View a graphic showing the most-restricted breeds of dogs by home insurers. |
Posted on 02/15/2005 12:50:38 PM PST by ambrose
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/212084_doginsurance15.html
A dog's breed is as bad as a bite for some insurers
Homeowner policies increasingly are denied or not renewed based on the type of dog a family has
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
By CANDACE HECKMAN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
SUQUAMISH -- The Pattens thought they were insurance-savvy, avoiding homeowner's claims by paying for repairs and household accidents.
| P-I GRAPHIC | |
|
But a month ago, Mathew Patten and Wiccan York-Patten discovered that they had been dropped by their insurer two months earlier because of the family pet, an aging German shepherd named Allison.
Allison had never hurt anybody, but the insurance company deemed her an "unacceptable liability exposure."
Not only because she is a dog, but because she is a German shepherd.
Some insurers have prohibited homeowners from harboring dangerous dogs for years. But in the past five years, some companies have developed lists of breeds they restrict from coverage based on their potential for danger.
Companies have received a growing number of dog-bite claims, and most are pegged to specific types of dogs.
For attacks in which breed was identifiable, pit bull types and rottweilers, for example, have been shown to cause more than half of fatalities, according to a federal study looking at cases from 1979 through 1996. More than 25 different breeds were found to have killed people.
Consumer and animal advocates call the insurance practice "breed profiling," and liken it to racial profiling, saying insurance companies are judging the family pet based on its potential instead of its behavior.
Homeowners such as the Pattens say it's the wrong kind of discrimination.
"It's really very judgmental," said Lisa Christensen, a Tacoma veterinarian. "Every dog has a tendency to be protective."
Christensen wrote an appeal to an insurance company on behalf of the owners of an 11-year-old, mixed-breed dog that looked as if it could have been part German shepherd. "But you really couldn't tell," she said.
An adjuster found out about the dog when the homeowners, Christensen's clients, made a claim for a broken chimney. The insurance company only relented after Christensen said the breed was unidentifiable.
The Pattens' agent, Peninsula Insurance Center of Chimacum, never called the couple to inquire about Allison's gender, age or training. The Pattens, who own a Bainbridge Island pet store and boarding kennel, said they would have liked the opportunity to defend themselves as responsible owners.
But no opportunity was given because of the insurer's breed restriction.
In a non-renewal letter, the agent called Allison "a very angry German shepherd dog," apparently because the animal barked at an appraiser who was sent to assess the Pattens' house.
"So I ask, 'What constitutes a very angry German shepherd dog?' " York-Patten recalled of the conversation with the insurance agent.
"He was like, 'She barked.'
" 'Yeah, and?'
" 'It's a German shepherd.' And that was it."
The Pattens were unable to persuade the agent to make an exception, and because of the subsequent lapse in their homeowner policy, the couple now pays more than double their annual premium.
Ed Davis, the agent, would not talk about the Pattens' case specifically, but said insurers discriminate against people and circumstances all the time. Owning an animal is always some kind of risk, he added.
Grange Insurance Association, the Pattens' insurer, would not allow comment on their case either, but the company lists German shepherds as a potential risk, said Mary Dawson, vice president of underwriting.
A bill in the state House of Representatives, HB1016, seeks to prevent insurers from banning breeds.
The bill would prohibit companies from denying an application, canceling or not renewing a policy or modifying an existing policy based on whether the homeowner owns or harbors a specific breed. The proposal would allow companies to continue denying policies for households that have "dangerous" dogs, defined in Washington by prior conduct.
"Any dog has the capability to bite and be dangerous," said Stephanie Lane, legislative director for the American Kennel Club in North Carolina. "AKC strongly supports dangerous dog laws, but not ones targeting breeds."
If it becomes law, Washington would be only the third state to enforce such a restriction. Michigan and Pennsylvania already restrict breed profiling.
The Pattens actually have two shepherds, although the agent cited only the female as the cause for non-renewal because Allison was the only dog home at the time the agent visited.
The couple also have a 2-year-old Corgi named Piper who actually barks more.
"That's what we pay their kibble for: 'Hey, there's a stranger at the door, woof,' " York-Patten said. "Still, I don't know what they had to be doing to get (Allison) to bark."
Allison is 9 years old and recovering from spinal cancer. She spends most of the day on the sofa near the front door, York-Patten said. Allison's grandfather worked for the Seattle Police Department, but Allison is an old show dog. She has a certificate of good citizenship from the American Kennel Club, though she still occasionally drinks out of the toilet.
The other shepherd, Gabriel, 3, is trained for search-and-rescue work and is recovering from a knee injury. He, too, drinks from the toilet, but will shake hands with anyone who asks.
"God forbid you should come into my house with a baseball bat and try to kill me," York-Patten said. "Barking and looking scary is about the only thing she could do. (Gabriel) would probably run away."
But Lane said responsible dog owners such as the Pattens are the victims of breed profiling. Responsible owners register their animals with government authorities, and often with the AKC if the dog is a purebred. Responsible owners are the ones who would be most likely to get caught by an insurance company.
The Pattens said that they were unaware of their insurer's breed restriction policy. If they had known their dogs were restricted, "we would've looked for another company," Mathew Patten said.
A little more than half of the member companies of the Washington Insurance Council keep breed bans. The council represents insurers that write about 80 percent of the state's homeowner policies.
About 23 percent of companies do not enforce a breed ban, and another 23 percent have a list of breeds that they scrutinize, if not restrict altogether.
"The good news is that there are still a lot of companies out there who will write insurance regardless of breed," said Karl Newman, council president.
PEMCO, for example, looks at many factors of dog ownership when underwriting, said company spokesman Jon Osterberg. Those factors may include the dog's age, gender, training and living conditions, in addition to breed.
Homeowners whose insurer bans the family dog have a choice: get rid of the dog or get rid of the company, Newman said.
"If they told me the only way you can keep those dogs is to take a class, I'd be fine with that," York-Patten said. "That would probably be a great thing for all dog owners."
But York-Patten believes that the no-exception, bad-breed approach is wrong.Seattle-based Safeco Insurance recently adopted new policies that restrict certain breeds.
Safeco won't cancel or deny policy renewal unless a claim has been made or the company somehow found out that a homeowner had a potentially dangerous dog, said company spokesman Paul Hollie.
Safeco may not write a new policy if the homeowner has a dog on its restricted breed list.
"But we always take these things on a case-by-case basis," Hollie said. "It could be a matter of higher pricing for the animal."
When it comes down to it, though, some companies could be judging the homeowners for the type of company they keep.
"A pit bull has a higher risk than a cocker spaniel, that's a fact of life," Dawson said. "It's like that saying, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.' Well, the people who buy assault weapons are probably a lot different than the people who don't.
"The kind of person who chooses to buy a pit bull is probably also a potentially aggressive person."
Insurance companies vary on policy restrictions regarding dog breeds. Some of the larger insurers and their guidelines:
doesn't provide insurance for a household that has more than three dogs, only one of which can be a German shepherd or Doberman pinscher; company keeps a list of restricted breeds and will not write or renew policies of homeowners who keep those breeds.
keeps a list of restricted breeds and will not renew.
keeps a list of restricted breeds and will not renew.
does not deny coverage, but underwriters take dog ownership into consideration in pricing.
keeps a list of restricted breeds and will not write new policies.
has no restrictions regarding breed.
P-I reporter Candace Heckman can be reached at 206-448-8348 or candaceheckman@seattlepi.com
© 1998-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
woof
I was asked about my dogs and horses alike by Pemco... they each have their own liabilities.
That pdf graphic accompanying the story lists boxers and mastiffs as "restricted" by at least one insurance company.
Which tells me someone at these companies made their decisions on how the dog looks. I've NEVER met a boxer or mastiff that was anything but overly friendly and extremely loyal and dedicated to its family.
The only reason one would ever attack is in defense of home and family, in which case someone probably has it coming anyway.
Boxers look mean, but are real goofballs.
Insurance is really the only form of socialism that we Americans will abide. We all pay into a large pot, and that money goes to pay the claims of the few. I don't want my company to have to cover liability for something they knew was dangerous anyway, like a dangerous breed of dog. I don't want to have to pay more in premiums because someone else keeps dangerous dogs. If insurance policys began excluding certain breeds of doge, another company would pop up and for a hefty premium they would cover the dogs. Lets say that the premiums were based on the number of claims made based on breed, but deduct from that specialized training that the dog and owner have been through, and how well confiined the dogs are.
Restriction of coverage.... exclusion of dog bite or dog liability claims, for example, would be an excellent way for the company to handle it.
If they put "Pit Bull Mix" on there, I could lose my insurance, not to mention forfeiture if a breed-specific ban ever came into play.
They are both a quarter Pit and half what is listed, so I'm not lying...
I work for one of those insurance companies and we do take "blacklisted" dogs - but they have to meet specific criteria. They have to have obedience training, have a signed certificate from the vet stating that they haven't been aggressive, have to be owned for over 1 year, among other things. As far as I know, the only way a policy would be cancelled or non-renewed is if none of these criteria are met.
My insurance is great - they have no restrictions on dogs. (which is why we can own a Pit & still have a preferred insurance company)
I think this needs to be done on a case by case basis. Individual dog's temperament should be factored into an insurance company's policy in this matter.
Gee, I wonder what they do about seeing eye dogs. Bunch of facists.
I saw that PDF too. It made me want to hug every one of those "dangerous" dogs.
---
Kitty Ping List alert!
[Freepmail me to get on or off the Kitty Ping List.]
Amen. The meanest dog I know is a runt white miniature schnauzer. She's killed two cats (and been an accessory to the murder of at least one more), and once treed a sow bear with a cub. She hates other dogs, cats, livestock, people, and every other entity in the universe except her owner, who she barely tolerates.
And then there's her bad points...
Wow, that's one mean dog!
You ain't kidding. She's the only dog I've ever met that I didn't like, and that takes some doing.
"Well, the people who buy assault weapons are probably a lot different than the people who don't."
Brainless bigot.
The scariest run-in with them happened about a year and a half ago. I'd been unloading items from my truck, including my then infant daughter. I had just placed my daughter, who was strapped in her car seat, on the floor of our garage when one of the little monsters just bolted across the street and straight on to our property.
The little creep was headed straight at my daughter, it even came IN TO our garage.
Luckily, the kitchen door was open and my (much bigger dog) Ursa had come out to see what the commotion was about. The schnauzer decided she'd better turn tail. But it took a while for me to calm down after that. Nasty, nasty, nasty little dogs.
It sure is hard to dislike a dog or a cat for that matter.
That sounds like the mini-schnauzer I mentioned. Nasty little beast. Glad everything turned out all right.
In all fairness, one of the sweetest dogs I ever knew was also a miniature schnauzer, owned by the same folks who own the demon schnauzer. When he died about a year ago they were heartbroken, and I was pretty sad myself.
(The folks who own the demon have several other dogs, and all except the demon are treasures. I don't blame them for the demon.)
Other than the creeps that live across the street, I actually haven't met too many mini schnauzers. Although there is another one who lives in our neighborhood. His name is Puccinni and he seems friendly enough.
Recently, I learned that my dad had owned a standard schnauzer some thirty years ago. Friendly dog, but rambunctuous as anything.
I'm reminded of Bill Murray in Stripes: "Folks, avoid the schnitzel, I hear they're using schnauzer!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.