It sounds like Doggie mom holds insurance companies at fault because her fellow dog owners are not responsible people. Dont expect insurance companies to make people be good dog owners, that is not the responsibility of insurance companies, that IS the responsibility of ALL pet owners, and yes you should pay more for insurance if the risk is higher, but if the risk is not profitable you can’t afford to buy the coverage and the company cant afford to sell it. It cost more for young drivers on an auto insurance policy,why? because the risk is higher and inexperienced drivers are going to do dumb things and get into accidents, they should pay more. If they continue to have bad habits the cost will be so high that they can not afford to buy insurance, and should not be on the roads because they are a danger to others, just like certain viscious breeds of dogs, DANGEROUS. I am not aware of ANY insurance company that charges more for any particular breed of dog, you either have coverage or you don’t. Some will allow you to buy back animal liability coverage as long as you do not have any of the “BAD” breeds, but the price is not breed specific. and it continues…
Well, I guess I just have to weigh in here. I am a dog-lover and also spent 10 years as an underwriter. The main problem we have in insurance is irresponsible dog owners, who don’t train their dogs, or worse yet, train them to be aggressive.
Let’s be honest, most companies are losing money writing your homeowner’s policy already. It’s a line that hasn’t been profitable in a long time. And, you only have to see the photos from one claim where a child was bitten in the face (yes, $75,000 in plastic surgery) before it makes you skittish.
As a field farm underwriter, I met literally hundreds of dogs, most of which were great working animals or sweet family pets. But, I was also the only one in my department who hadn’t been bitten on the job.
Bottom line is that most responsible people don’t own animals like pit bulls or rottweilers because they know they are dangerous. If they do, they are going to have problems finding insurance. But, there are still companies willing to write this, so you need to get shopping and yes, you might pay more. It’s a free country so you still get to have the dog but nothing says we have to insure it for free.
Ruth, if there is 65 million dogs in 45 million households, this indicates that alot of people have more than 1 dog. the problem is that the us census reported 281,421,906 people in the US in 2000. There is a vast majority of people that DO NOT HAVE DOGS.
I think you were referring to my post where I stated that most homes have dogs and you are right. I mis-stated. It seems that there are only 65 million dogs in the United States in 40 million households. This information is from the HSUS 2004 pet census. Okay, so not most, but 40 million is a helluva lot of market share.
Speaking of sharing, I wholeheartedly agree that there should be no free ride for dog owners; even the ones that train. I think the American love affair with the dog will continue and I also believe most of us would gladly pay an additional premium for the privilege of having our homeowners coverage extend to dog liability. I also believe that dog owners who attain AKC or UKC obedience titles or attain the AKC Canine Good Citizenship on their dogs should receive some discount off of the “dog” surcharge, just a good students earn discounts off of their surcharged “young driver” rates.
I have no problem with “one bite and you’re out”. Yes, I am a dog lover, but I am not an idiot. I would not expect an insurance company to continue to extend liability to a dog that has already bitten. BUT, let’s make sure the dog actually bit. Many of the dog bite claims I have seen were actually scratches from nails done in play or knocking over the neighbor with an exhuberant welcome. Give that type of dog’s owner the chance to earn an obedience certificate before making them into a pariah.
It is and always has been the dog owners’ who should be held accountable. If someone is not willing to fence their yard as they are required to do if they own a pool or a trampoline, then they don’t deserve preferred market coverage. If someone has a dubious claim brought against them for their dog’s actions, unless it is a serious, no mistake, honest to God bite; then require them to present evidence of an obedience class graduation; or the AKC Good Citizenship award or a certified animal behaviorist evaluation.
There are sensible ways to do this; we just have to get there.
The bottom line is that anyone that owns a dog has an obligation to be in control of that animal at all times. Period! I’ve handled too many dog bite claims in my career where the guilty owner showed more concern for their dog than the person who was bit. One look at an infant whose lip was bit off by an out of control dog and you understand why insurance companies are leery of insuring owners of dogs, especially those breeds that have unpredictable demeanors.
A true story:
As a young underwriter, I cancelled a policy when I learned, through an inspection, that the insured had a pit bull. The insured was so upset that he contacted the local television station. My company made the evening news as the heartless insurance company that didn’t understand that this was a well trained, pure bred dog with an outstanding pedigree. We took the heat, but didn’t back down. One year later, our ex-insured’s five year old grandaughter was visiting when, for “no apparent reason”, the dog attacked. She was badly mauled, but lived. No TV cameras came this time. Only a small article in the local paper. Some other insurance company bought that loss. I wonder if that underwriter is still insuring pit bulls.
Glad to hear from you guys; you only need to see one bad bite claim or fatality (it happens too) to understand that parents/owners don’t watch kids/dogs the way they should, and whether or not the dog’s got a degree or not, if the 5 year old is alone with Rottweiler and tries to pull his tail, what’s going to happen? I’m not willing to underwrite that dog, because I can’t be guaranteed that the kid will be kept under control. And when the bite happens, and it will, it’ll be the homeowners policy that pays the plastic surgeon.
If nothing else, Doodle ignited a maelstrom of passion about people and their dogs. A closer look at his examples tells you that 5 of the 6 involve specialized training that 99.5% of all other dogs never get.
I see this issue as a battle ground for adverse selection. People who properly train their dogs should have little exposure to the peril and therefore less concern when insurance companies do not want to cover dogs.
The vast majority of dog owners who do little or nothing to train their dogs are the ones who need to be sweating the lack of coverage. Their overwhelming desire to own a dog, regardless of the availability of insurance, is still not enough to get them to properly train their dog, thus leaving them in good position to lose all their hard earned assets after a serious bite.
Once again, the failure of some to be responsible, reasonable, and prudent ruins it for those who are.
Lets face it – an animal is an animal regardless of the breed, how well it was trained, how carefully handled, or how many certificates it has received, or how publicly decorated… There is no one on this earth that can guarantee than an animals instinct, for domination, preservation, or protection isn’t going to take over at any given moment. I AM a responsible pet owner – my dogs have been trained from the beginning not to bark excessively…someone in the yard next door? Yes, they are alert, but they also know that they are not to bark – and if they do, and I am home, they are called on it. Okay they can sit, stay, heal and roll over too… Can I train them not to bite? I can try…but I am not going to say that they will never bite. Even I ask an owner before I pet an animal, my son was also raised to ask and does so even after 15 years. That’s all well and good – but when the animal is running loose, no one is going to stop what comes natural.
The reality of it is… any dog can be vicious – yes… even a Pomeranian that was mentioned in another post… However certain breeds are more likely to bite – Lets talk about education – – – Go do a search on DOG BITES and take a walk on the wild side.
Every pet-owner is responsible for their pet’s actions – it’s a little thing called personal responsibility that seems to be lacking in a lot of households. If you choose to own an animal – then you should personally accept the responsibility. Of course, there is the criminal element that we all pay for regardless of how we feel.
Carriers have the right to exclude animals from their policies, just like every one of us has the right to decide if we own a pet, and the ultimate responsibility that comes with it.
I’ve been an underwriter for 29 years – and I will never stop doing my job, nor do I expect the company that I work for, or any others from doing theirs.
A dog bite from your non-aggressive type dog will cost you $10-15K in litigation. A bite from an agressive dog like a pit bull will cost policy limits. Why would anyone ever write a home for an insured who has one of those agressive breeds. The homeowner rate is the best deal going. And I can’t imagine rating structures were developed with pit bulls in mind.
With all the “cat’s” out there, we shouldn’t be forced to worry about the dogs
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
It sounds like Doggie mom holds insurance companies at fault because her fellow dog owners are not responsible people. Dont expect insurance companies to make people be good dog owners, that is not the responsibility of insurance companies, that IS the responsibility of ALL pet owners, and yes you should pay more for insurance if the risk is higher, but if the risk is not profitable you can’t afford to buy the coverage and the company cant afford to sell it. It cost more for young drivers on an auto insurance policy,why? because the risk is higher and inexperienced drivers are going to do dumb things and get into accidents, they should pay more. If they continue to have bad habits the cost will be so high that they can not afford to buy insurance, and should not be on the roads because they are a danger to others, just like certain viscious breeds of dogs, DANGEROUS. I am not aware of ANY insurance company that charges more for any particular breed of dog, you either have coverage or you don’t. Some will allow you to buy back animal liability coverage as long as you do not have any of the “BAD” breeds, but the price is not breed specific. and it continues…
Well, I guess I just have to weigh in here. I am a dog-lover and also spent 10 years as an underwriter. The main problem we have in insurance is irresponsible dog owners, who don’t train their dogs, or worse yet, train them to be aggressive.
Let’s be honest, most companies are losing money writing your homeowner’s policy already. It’s a line that hasn’t been profitable in a long time. And, you only have to see the photos from one claim where a child was bitten in the face (yes, $75,000 in plastic surgery) before it makes you skittish.
As a field farm underwriter, I met literally hundreds of dogs, most of which were great working animals or sweet family pets. But, I was also the only one in my department who hadn’t been bitten on the job.
Bottom line is that most responsible people don’t own animals like pit bulls or rottweilers because they know they are dangerous. If they do, they are going to have problems finding insurance. But, there are still companies willing to write this, so you need to get shopping and yes, you might pay more. It’s a free country so you still get to have the dog but nothing says we have to insure it for free.
Ruth, if there is 65 million dogs in 45 million households, this indicates that alot of people have more than 1 dog. the problem is that the us census reported 281,421,906 people in the US in 2000. There is a vast majority of people that DO NOT HAVE DOGS.
I think you were referring to my post where I stated that most homes have dogs and you are right. I mis-stated. It seems that there are only 65 million dogs in the United States in 40 million households. This information is from the HSUS 2004 pet census. Okay, so not most, but 40 million is a helluva lot of market share.
Speaking of sharing, I wholeheartedly agree that there should be no free ride for dog owners; even the ones that train. I think the American love affair with the dog will continue and I also believe most of us would gladly pay an additional premium for the privilege of having our homeowners coverage extend to dog liability. I also believe that dog owners who attain AKC or UKC obedience titles or attain the AKC Canine Good Citizenship on their dogs should receive some discount off of the “dog” surcharge, just a good students earn discounts off of their surcharged “young driver” rates.
I have no problem with “one bite and you’re out”. Yes, I am a dog lover, but I am not an idiot. I would not expect an insurance company to continue to extend liability to a dog that has already bitten. BUT, let’s make sure the dog actually bit. Many of the dog bite claims I have seen were actually scratches from nails done in play or knocking over the neighbor with an exhuberant welcome. Give that type of dog’s owner the chance to earn an obedience certificate before making them into a pariah.
It is and always has been the dog owners’ who should be held accountable. If someone is not willing to fence their yard as they are required to do if they own a pool or a trampoline, then they don’t deserve preferred market coverage. If someone has a dubious claim brought against them for their dog’s actions, unless it is a serious, no mistake, honest to God bite; then require them to present evidence of an obedience class graduation; or the AKC Good Citizenship award or a certified animal behaviorist evaluation.
There are sensible ways to do this; we just have to get there.
The bottom line is that anyone that owns a dog has an obligation to be in control of that animal at all times. Period! I’ve handled too many dog bite claims in my career where the guilty owner showed more concern for their dog than the person who was bit. One look at an infant whose lip was bit off by an out of control dog and you understand why insurance companies are leery of insuring owners of dogs, especially those breeds that have unpredictable demeanors.
A true story:
As a young underwriter, I cancelled a policy when I learned, through an inspection, that the insured had a pit bull. The insured was so upset that he contacted the local television station. My company made the evening news as the heartless insurance company that didn’t understand that this was a well trained, pure bred dog with an outstanding pedigree. We took the heat, but didn’t back down. One year later, our ex-insured’s five year old grandaughter was visiting when, for “no apparent reason”, the dog attacked. She was badly mauled, but lived. No TV cameras came this time. Only a small article in the local paper. Some other insurance company bought that loss. I wonder if that underwriter is still insuring pit bulls.
Glad to hear from you guys; you only need to see one bad bite claim or fatality (it happens too) to understand that parents/owners don’t watch kids/dogs the way they should, and whether or not the dog’s got a degree or not, if the 5 year old is alone with Rottweiler and tries to pull his tail, what’s going to happen? I’m not willing to underwrite that dog, because I can’t be guaranteed that the kid will be kept under control. And when the bite happens, and it will, it’ll be the homeowners policy that pays the plastic surgeon.
If nothing else, Doodle ignited a maelstrom of passion about people and their dogs. A closer look at his examples tells you that 5 of the 6 involve specialized training that 99.5% of all other dogs never get.
I see this issue as a battle ground for adverse selection. People who properly train their dogs should have little exposure to the peril and therefore less concern when insurance companies do not want to cover dogs.
The vast majority of dog owners who do little or nothing to train their dogs are the ones who need to be sweating the lack of coverage. Their overwhelming desire to own a dog, regardless of the availability of insurance, is still not enough to get them to properly train their dog, thus leaving them in good position to lose all their hard earned assets after a serious bite.
Once again, the failure of some to be responsible, reasonable, and prudent ruins it for those who are.
Lets face it – an animal is an animal regardless of the breed, how well it was trained, how carefully handled, or how many certificates it has received, or how publicly decorated… There is no one on this earth that can guarantee than an animals instinct, for domination, preservation, or protection isn’t going to take over at any given moment. I AM a responsible pet owner – my dogs have been trained from the beginning not to bark excessively…someone in the yard next door? Yes, they are alert, but they also know that they are not to bark – and if they do, and I am home, they are called on it. Okay they can sit, stay, heal and roll over too… Can I train them not to bite? I can try…but I am not going to say that they will never bite. Even I ask an owner before I pet an animal, my son was also raised to ask and does so even after 15 years. That’s all well and good – but when the animal is running loose, no one is going to stop what comes natural.
The reality of it is… any dog can be vicious – yes… even a Pomeranian that was mentioned in another post… However certain breeds are more likely to bite – Lets talk about education – – – Go do a search on DOG BITES and take a walk on the wild side.
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html – Top
How about the reality of the extent of injuries that can occur? Check out the graphic photos of children mauled by animals
http://www.plasticsurgery4u.com/procedure_folder/dog_bite.html
Every pet-owner is responsible for their pet’s actions – it’s a little thing called personal responsibility that seems to be lacking in a lot of households. If you choose to own an animal – then you should personally accept the responsibility. Of course, there is the criminal element that we all pay for regardless of how we feel.
Carriers have the right to exclude animals from their policies, just like every one of us has the right to decide if we own a pet, and the ultimate responsibility that comes with it.
I’ve been an underwriter for 29 years – and I will never stop doing my job, nor do I expect the company that I work for, or any others from doing theirs.
A dog bite from your non-aggressive type dog will cost you $10-15K in litigation. A bite from an agressive dog like a pit bull will cost policy limits. Why would anyone ever write a home for an insured who has one of those agressive breeds. The homeowner rate is the best deal going. And I can’t imagine rating structures were developed with pit bulls in mind.
With all the “cat’s” out there, we shouldn’t be forced to worry about the dogs