Other articles with keyword "DOGGIEPING" since 12/29/04
Posted on 05/04/2005 6:21:08 PM PDT by ambrose
Bill would forbid insurance discrimination by dog breed
(Hartford-AP, May 4, 2005 4:40 PM) _ The House has narrowly passed a bill that forbids insurance companies from refusing coverage to people who own certain kinds of dogs.
The House voted 77-to-70 today to approve the bill, which now goes to the Senate. The bill bans companies from refusing to cover homeowners based only on dog breed.
But it does allow companies to set conditions, such as requiring owners of certain breeds to have dogs neutered or take them to obedience training. That's to try to prevent dogs from biting people.
Representative Robert Menga, a Democrat from New Haven, says five of the top ten homeowner's insurance companies won't issue policies to people who own dogs such as pit bulls and Rottweilers.
Megna said such breed blacklisting hurts responsible dog owners, who are sometimes forced to pay exorbitant rates in alternative insurance markets.
But many legislators say it is unfair for them to restrict private insurance companies from making decisions on who gets coverage and at what rates.
According to the New York-based Insurance Information Institute, dog bites in the United States accounted for a quarter of all homeowners' insurance liability claims in 2003. They cost roughly 321-point-six million dollars.
..
So the insurance companies will simply not insure for dogs at all. Pretty stupid and short sighted if you ask me.
the trial lawyers want to make sure EVERYONE has insurance - its the honey pot they dip into for their settlements. and if some child is killed by a pit bull, they could care less, and apparently the legisiators don't care either.
Legislating in the face of actuarial science penalizes private business by making them pony up for the higher risk. In the end, all rates will have to be raised to compensate, while the low lifes with their deadly dogs get a bye.
Politics and creationism have a lot in common. The truth is whatever they say it is, and reality can lump it.
Pit Bull lobby?
My insurance was cancelled because I had a German Shepherd. Never mind that she was the sweetest, quietest dog I have ever owned. They found out about her, and that was it.
I can see how some breeds have worse reputations than others, but I would have liked to have had some alternative. Perhaps bring her to someone to have her evaluated.
"I don't like this... Insurance is a private business, and they ought to be able to write their policies to weigh risk and customer need to keep rates the most competitive."
That pretty much says it all for me. Either every dog owner is going to be paying pit bull rates or every dog owner is going to be denied coverage. Real smart.
There are so many rotweilers and pit bulls running around in Phx!!!
I have my border collie and sheltie in the house and/or in the bakhyard with a lock on the gate.
If someone they don't know comes over, the kids have them on leashes until they get to know the person(s).
They won't insure for dog injuries, meaning if your pit bites somebody or your poodle bites somebody, you're risking bankruptcy.
The article doesn't say that insurance companies can't gouge the hell out of pit owners, just that they can't refuse insurance based on breed.
My carrier here in Texas won't insure me if I have a pit, or a Rottie or a Doberman.
Gee, fireworks factories pay higher premiums than lemonade stands.
That is already happening. People in my state have lost their home because they were dropped for owning a dog. Don't get mislead by the statement of pit bull and Rottweiler. There are about 11 dogs on the list and some of the names cover categories of dogs.
So to avoid disputes and confusion, insurance companies have just been dropping clients.
I am not sure that's true, the bill appears to speak to regulation of rates.
"But many legislators say it is unfair for them to restrict private insurance companies from making decisions on who gets coverage and at what rates."
Well, then they'll just drop coverage for dog injuries.
It is hard to understand the problem unless you live in a blue state.
People with dogs, period, have been being dropped. No conversation, no notification, no alternatives. Then, they can't get coverage and they lose their homes.
Which is an understandable response to strongarming them into coverage they don't want to offer.
I work for an insurance company as an underwriter.
We require photos of your dog, I once had potential customer claim they had a beagle, but the dog that was peaking over the fence in the picture they sent us looked awfully like a rotweiler.. Needless to say, they were turned down.
Aggressive dogs are huge liabilities.
Excuse me, but this is idiotic. Insure a Rott the same as a Daschund?
You also can't have trampolines with the company I work for.
Why doesn't the government pass a law requiring insurance companies to insure homes with trampolines?
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.