Bill would forbid insurance discrimination by dog breed

AP ^ | 5.4.05

[Calpernia]

Sorry, busy yawning here....

::winks::

[HairOfTheDog]

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.

I live in Washington, a "blue state". I am not sure that isn't an exaggeration of the problem, I have both dogs and horses, both valid liability concerns, and had insurance (renters homeowner's) with a major carrier, Pemco. Now they did drop me for living in a mobile too far from the fire dept (it's only 3 miles, which made me a little nervous), but I found alternate coverage, at a fairly affordable rate, with an alternate carrier. There's far too many customers with dogs out there for NO ONE to want the business.

[af_vet_1981]

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.

I wonder why it passed.

[Ramius]

The other effect is that they may just raise premiums for *all* breeds to reflect one single rate for all risks.

It would be sorta like some law saying that car insurance policies could no longer distinguish between "high" and "low" risk drivers. So... premiums for all drivers are raised to some equal level so that low risk drivers can effectively subsidize high risk drivers.

[HairOfTheDog]

Followup... I just don't believe it. Now, if you tell me that pit bull owners in the middle of the city with a home day care on the premises get dropped and no one else will take them, ~that~ I might understand.

[Calpernia]

>>>>>I live in Washington, a "blue state".

Sorry, assumed. Feel pretty alone as a blue state denizen at times ;)

>>>> I am not sure that isn't an exaggeration of the problem, I have both dogs and horses, both valid liability concerns, and had insurance (renters homeowner's) with a major carrier, Pemco. Now they did drop me for living in a mobile too far from the fire dept (it's only 3 miles, which made me a little nervous), but I found alternate coverage, at a fairly affordable rate, with an alternate carrier. There's far too many customers with dogs out there for NO ONE to want the business.

It isn't an exaggeration. It is one of the reasons for the influx of people moving out of this state. I know it doesn't sound too believable; but that is one of the reason for this bill. A trend is trying to be stopped in it's tracks.

::P.S. I don't appreciate government meddling in private business...but envelopes get pushed for measures like this. Hopefully it is temporary::

[HairOfTheDog]

Hopefully it is temporary::

Laws are ~never~ temporary.

Dog owners are well over half the population. I am not believing no one wants that business.... see my followup.

[Calpernia]

>>>Followup... I just don't believe it. Now, if you tell me that pit bull owners in the middle of the city with a home day care on the premises get dropped and no one else will take them, ~that~ I might understand.

I understand. It does sound ridiculous. It is true though. That is why this bill birthed and passed.

[Calpernia]

>>>I am not believing no one wants that business.

Ah. We don't have 'free market' here in my state. There have been laws allowing only certain insurance carriers in this state. You got to be in the 'in crowd' to do business behind this iron curtain.

[SALChamps03]

I have always said that with few exceptions, the more vicious the dog, the lower the IQ of the owner...in most cases.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Silly bill. Insurance companies have a right to select those they want to insure based on objective screening. If I were them, I wouldn't insure pit bulls, Rotties, and several others. Individual home owners have the right to choose the breed of dog they want - and it was a free choice. No different than paying more to drive a corvette.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Either every dog owner is going to be paying pit bull rates or every dog owner is going to be denied coverage. Real smart.

Typical of government's approach to any issue. Zero tolerance of common sense. Responsible people are penalized because of the yahoos. Meanwhile, dealing with dangerous dogs is always done *after* the fact.

These legislators are goofy on so many levels, it's almost pointless to list them.

[rolling_stone]

Hey I want liability insurance for a compact car to be the same price as for an 18 wheeler semi, same for a 16 year old vs a 60 year old... where's the justice? Idiot politicians.

[Lorianne]

No poodle insurance?

[rottndog]

Aggressive dogs are huge liabilities.


Aggressive dogs, that's the whole issue. I used to have 2 rotts, now 1, and both never displayed any aggressive behavior. Both had multiple obedience training classes. Both were as sweet as any other dog I ever had. So you think I should lose my house because some idiot insurance company can't differentiate between aggressive and non-aggressive dogs?

The problem is the blanket approach you morons take to something like this. I have a rottweiller therefore the dog is aggressive therefore I am not entitled to an insurance policy? Even though I am a very responsible person who has taken every precaution to ensure my dogs are not a threat to anyone (except the bad guys)? Even though my dogs are less of a risk than many "unaggressive" breeds? Even though the presence of my dogs are clearly a deterrent to potential burglars (everyone in the neighborhood knows my dogs and I don't get uninvited guests) and therefore my house is actually more secure? It's this kind of stupid and short sighted logic that makes me sometimes cheer on the gubmint and its regulators.

[SengirV]

My Rottie was the most perfect being I have ever met in my entire life. Sweet beyond belief, a big cuddle bug and loyal to a fault. Yet to most here, she was a vicious beast by looks alone. So sad.

[rdcorso]

This policy of banning certain breeds doesn't make any sense at all.It's usually the owner who causes the dog to bite.All dogs have certain things they dislike and the owner should recognize what they are and keep them away from the dog.I have a large dog who loves people but he didn't like my mother in-law for some reason.She sat on my couch one day and the dog climbed up behind her and started pushing her off the couch as if he was reading my mind.He never growled or anything but just to be safe I keep him away when she visits.She blames me for training the dog to dislike her but I think it's her charming personality he doesn't like. It's amazing how some dogs are such good judges of character.

[org.whodat]

everyone in the neighborhood knows my dogs

How??

[Calpernia]

>>>It's usually the owner who causes the dog to bite.

Stupid victims are guilty of causing dogs to bite too.

[steve86]

some of the names cover categories of dogs.

Like good dog, bad dog?