[ambrose]

woof

[HairOfTheDog]

I do think the insurance companies should be free to make their own policies (it's their money) and the legislature needs to stay out of it. If enough of them make stupid decisions like this one case, they'll lose good customers to other companies. I wouldn't have thought this dog a big risk by the description, but they did cancel based on observed behavior according to the article, and I can't blame them for deciding some breeds are riskier than others.

I was asked about my dogs and horses alike by Pemco... they each have their own liabilities.

Ping!

Other articles with keyword "DOGGIEPING" since 12/29/04

[StoneColdGOP]

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.

[arizonarachel]

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)

[Shellback Chuck]

Gee, I wonder what they do about seeing eye dogs. Bunch of facists.

[Felis_irritable]

"Well, the people who buy assault weapons are probably a lot different than the people who don't."

Brainless bigot.