The problem isn’t certain breeds. It’s not carrying insurance. ALL dogs (Yes, even your lovable black lab, beagle, golden retriever, toy poodle, etc) can kill you. My stupid little dachshund will follow anyone with a cookie but I never, ever forget that he is a DOG first and at any time, for any random “reason” he could turn and tear off the face of anyone who comes near him. The solution is not breed specific it is dog specific – you own it, you carry insurance to cover yourself on it. For that matter, the mouths and claws of cats are like festering cesspools of bacteria that can cause extremely serious, even deadly infections – start requiring insurance for cat owners too.
YO, George M…Are you reading the same article? Maimed/death is Maimed/death! And if you want to bring guns into the mix, rifles/shotguns can either or both have the same effects. Both large/small dogs can cause maimed/death. It just depends on the circumstances, and nobody can predict those.
Creating a stricter liability statute is fine but unless dog owners carry sufficient HO and/or Umbrella limits to cover damages caused by their pets, injured parties are no better off than they were before. Nobody is going to monitor liability insurance coverage of dog owners. This sounds like more rhetoric than anything.
It might take a while for the market to respond, but this will get things moving. All you’ll need is a few settlements that home owners can’t pay out of pocket. Then they lose their house and insurance/mortgage companies will either not write for people with certain breed’s of dogs, or will require a special endorsement/umbrella policy for dog owners. It will be unfortunate if there isn’t a distinction made for different dog breeds and a beagle is treated the same as a doberman or rottweiler, but I’m sure it will work out well.
At least it’s a step in the right direction and applies to all dogs, not certain breeds. Granted, injured parties may be no better off than before the bill, and there may be no monitoring of coverage, but if it’s there it should respond.
The law may apply to all breeds, but the application of it will have to distinguish between the breeds. While all dogs can bite, the odds of a toy poodle, or a daschund jumping a fence and mauling a child are pretty slim. Little dogs have little bites. Little bites have little medical bills. The real expensive claims come from big dogs that do permanent disfiguring or kill people.
If there is a clear cut way to distinguish between risks, insurance companies will eventually use it.
I don’t see a problem with this. Most HO’s have at least $100K coverage. Big dog, little dog, not much diference. On a small bite, HO would be advised to come out of pocket and take care of med bill (and accept liability!!??) Yes big dogs bite bigger, but little dogs are most frequent biter. Ask any Post Office employee. Dogs getting to be in the “stirct” liabilty area, and probably should be. Of course, If I lived in the state, I’d but up sign “beware of dog” etc signs so I could claim no “invitees”!!!
Minor dog bites from “normal” breeds have never been the problem. I’ve handled GL claims for 35 years and very few “catastrophic” injuries come from normal breeds. They’ll snap and bite once or twice then it’s over.
More recently, the issue has become the two or three “specialty” breeds that just don’t bite, but attack without provocation, maul, maim, and sometimes kill. We all know the names including the Pit Bull and Rottweiller. The stats don’t lie. These breeds have the propensity to do significantly more harm than normal pets. My experience has confirmed that the majority of people who own the “specialty” breeds described above usually have an “attitude” that their dogs portray authority. They’re also less likely to carry enough liability insurance.
You are not immune from civil penalties just because you don’t have insurance. Before supporting an insurance requirement law, investigate the marketplace and see what is available. If you make an almost mandatory assigned risk market tax payers will be the patsy for the costs.
Please see where the bandwagon is going before you jump on it.
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.
The problem isn’t certain breeds. It’s not carrying insurance. ALL dogs (Yes, even your lovable black lab, beagle, golden retriever, toy poodle, etc) can kill you. My stupid little dachshund will follow anyone with a cookie but I never, ever forget that he is a DOG first and at any time, for any random “reason” he could turn and tear off the face of anyone who comes near him. The solution is not breed specific it is dog specific – you own it, you carry insurance to cover yourself on it. For that matter, the mouths and claws of cats are like festering cesspools of bacteria that can cause extremely serious, even deadly infections – start requiring insurance for cat owners too.
YO, George M…Are you reading the same article? Maimed/death is Maimed/death! And if you want to bring guns into the mix, rifles/shotguns can either or both have the same effects. Both large/small dogs can cause maimed/death. It just depends on the circumstances, and nobody can predict those.
Creating a stricter liability statute is fine but unless dog owners carry sufficient HO and/or Umbrella limits to cover damages caused by their pets, injured parties are no better off than they were before. Nobody is going to monitor liability insurance coverage of dog owners. This sounds like more rhetoric than anything.
“…harboring or keeping a dog …” LOL
It must be a dirty business but I’m sure someone will do it.
It might take a while for the market to respond, but this will get things moving. All you’ll need is a few settlements that home owners can’t pay out of pocket. Then they lose their house and insurance/mortgage companies will either not write for people with certain breed’s of dogs, or will require a special endorsement/umbrella policy for dog owners. It will be unfortunate if there isn’t a distinction made for different dog breeds and a beagle is treated the same as a doberman or rottweiler, but I’m sure it will work out well.
At least it’s a step in the right direction and applies to all dogs, not certain breeds. Granted, injured parties may be no better off than before the bill, and there may be no monitoring of coverage, but if it’s there it should respond.
The law may apply to all breeds, but the application of it will have to distinguish between the breeds. While all dogs can bite, the odds of a toy poodle, or a daschund jumping a fence and mauling a child are pretty slim. Little dogs have little bites. Little bites have little medical bills. The real expensive claims come from big dogs that do permanent disfiguring or kill people.
If there is a clear cut way to distinguish between risks, insurance companies will eventually use it.
I don’t see a problem with this. Most HO’s have at least $100K coverage. Big dog, little dog, not much diference. On a small bite, HO would be advised to come out of pocket and take care of med bill (and accept liability!!??) Yes big dogs bite bigger, but little dogs are most frequent biter. Ask any Post Office employee. Dogs getting to be in the “stirct” liabilty area, and probably should be. Of course, If I lived in the state, I’d but up sign “beware of dog” etc signs so I could claim no “invitees”!!!
Minor dog bites from “normal” breeds have never been the problem. I’ve handled GL claims for 35 years and very few “catastrophic” injuries come from normal breeds. They’ll snap and bite once or twice then it’s over.
More recently, the issue has become the two or three “specialty” breeds that just don’t bite, but attack without provocation, maul, maim, and sometimes kill. We all know the names including the Pit Bull and Rottweiller. The stats don’t lie. These breeds have the propensity to do significantly more harm than normal pets. My experience has confirmed that the majority of people who own the “specialty” breeds described above usually have an “attitude” that their dogs portray authority. They’re also less likely to carry enough liability insurance.
You are not immune from civil penalties just because you don’t have insurance. Before supporting an insurance requirement law, investigate the marketplace and see what is available. If you make an almost mandatory assigned risk market tax payers will be the patsy for the costs.
Please see where the bandwagon is going before you jump on it.