JLP’s Question of the Day

« One of my Friends is in the News! | Main | Don’t Forget to Listen to This Week’s MoneyBloggerPodcast! »

By JLP | June 1, 2006

Step 2: Leave a comment answering this question:

Should insurance carriers be allowed to exclude certain breeds of dogs from coverage?

My answer:

Heck yeah they should! In my 0pinion people have no business owning pit bulls or any other aggressive animal. My cousin and her boyfriend owned a pit bull. Now, I don’t know my cousin’s boy friend that well, so I don’t know if he raised the dog to be more aggressive or not. However, their dog mauled a little kid and now they are being sued.

I think if states force insurance companies to cover these types of dogs, then they should be able to charge more for them.

Now it is your turn to weigh in.

Topics: Question of the Day |

Comments to “JLP’s Question of the Day”

Carl Says:
June 1st, 2006 at 2:54 pm

Yes, offer dog insurance, better yet can I get a discount on my homeowners insurance for not having a dog.

Marsh71 Says:
June 1st, 2006 at 3:06 pm

I agree that companies should be able to charge higher rates for homeowners who have agreesive breeds, but I don’t think they should be able to refuse or drop coverage because of it. I have been around dogs my entire life, and it completely depends on how the dog is trained and raised. I just feel it is unfortunate for those who train and treat their dogs right should have to deal with these issues because of people out there who train their dogs to be agressive.

Vlad Stojanovski Says:
June 1st, 2006 at 3:23 pm

Insurance companies should be free to decide. It’s a business, and should be a business decision. If an insurance company decides not to cover smokers (or cover smokers ONLY!), for example, they should be free to do so.

On a personal and more irrelevant note, I don’t care much for dogs–they make too much noise at best and can be dangerous at worst. But just ’cause I hate dogs and cigarette smoke doesn’t mean the city should stop you from smoking while walking your dog in the park. So then maybe I should also be allowed to carry I gun so I can shoot an aggresive dog that’s heading for my daughter’s head, hmmm? But I digress…

Ricemutt Says:
June 1st, 2006 at 4:03 pm

I agree that insurance carriers probably have a right to exclude or include coverages as they wish, but at all not because of the reason you stated.

Insurance companies, like any business, are allowed to operate as they wish within legal boundaries. Current law bars certain types of discrimination when people are concerned, but not canines. Unfortunately, just as in the case where actuaries and statisticians have decided that certain demographics are higher risk and ought to pay more for car insurance, people who are responsible dog owners but own the “wrong” type of dog end up paying extra for something they shouldn’t, at least in an ideal world.

I have to disagree completely with the statement that people have no business owning “pit bulls or any other aggressive animal”. The article cites the CDC, Humane Society, and other expert organizations and professionals who vouch that there are other factors at work in dog aggression besides simply their breed. Personally, two of the kindest and noblest dogs I’ve known have been Rottweilers, and their owners have been both very loving and very strict about their training and upbringing. There are always exceptions to a rule.

In the end, as is all too common, it’s we human owners who have to take responsibility and rear a well-behaved dog, especially when they are large breeds. Given that these so-called “aggressive” breeds are often used and abused by people, left in shelters, and trained to bring out the bad traits that are exactly what they’re perceived to have, creates a vicious cycle. I don’t think banning their existence is the solution at all. On the other hand, I don’t know of a way to force people to be responsible, either. But by banning an animal we’re forcing them to pay the price for our own excesses and only proving that we’re a worse species than the ones we claim to dominate.

sam Says:
June 1st, 2006 at 4:16 pm

I don’t know enough about the inherent agressiveness of certain breeds of dogs vs. how they are raised/trained/treated to speak intellegently on the subject. My limited personal obervation is that some people, generally young men, get certain breeds of dogs to project a more macho or mean image. Assuming that to be the case, such a person would be more likely to raise/train/treat the dog in a way that makes it more aggressive or violent.

It certainly should be the right of insurance companies to increase premiums for people that own aggressive dogs. I just can’t say whether all pit bulls or rottwielers, etc. automatically fall into that category.

Anandi Says:
June 1st, 2006 at 4:36 pm

I agree that it’s the right of insurance companies to run their business how they choose, but as the owner of one of those supposedly “aggressive” breeds, a Rottweiler mix, I can tell you that a lot of companies lost out on a lot of $$ by deciding not to insure our house because of one part of our dog’s breed. We switched all of our business (4 cars, 2 motorcycles, and house) to the company that did not discriminate.

One possibility - any dog owner should pay a little more $ for insurance, just like someone with a swimming pool would, regardless of the breed. Our beagle is more likely to bite a child than our Rottweiler mix.

Another suggestion - remove that extra cost, or override the breed discrimination if your dog passes the American Kennel Club’s Canine Good Citizen test. The test only costs $10. Kind of like taking and passing the Motorcycle Safety Foundation class to get a discount on insurance for your bike.

Those would make it a little more fair, rather than discriminating against supposedly “aggressive breeds”, when any dog can do damage, and it’s bad owners that are the problem.

Chris Says:
June 1st, 2006 at 7:01 pm

I totally (and respectfully) disagree with your opinion about pit bulls, and partially disagree about insurance companies not covering them.

My fiancee and I have a pit-bull, along with another dog (standard poodle) and a cat. While our pit bull requires our full attention, he is well behaved, obedient, and affectionate. He is great around kids, and our other pets.

“people have no business owning pit bulls or any other aggressive animal”

I do certainly realize that all pit bulls don’t fit this description, but really, who are you (or anybody else) to decide what “business” people have owning certain kinds of pets?

I’m sure this will stir up the usual “it’s the owner’s fault not the dog’s” vs “pit-bulls are inherently dangerous” debate, but that’s irrelevant. The fact is that these dogs *can* be safe and loving pets, when given the proper attention and cared for responsibly.

Yes, some are overly aggressive, and in those cases they should be put down if they endanger other people or other pets. This is the owner’s responsibility.

Now to the insurance question. I’m sure if you look at the issue from a purely statistical perspective, it will in fact indicate that these breeds (pit bull, etc) are higher-risk than others. However, excluding coverage for ALL dogs of a particular breed isn’t fair to those that are well behaved and have responsible owners (I totally agree with Ricemutt here).

So should they be allowed to exclude coverage for certain breeds? My personal opinion is that they shouldn’t, but I guess those companies will do what they want to within the limits of the law. Should they be allowed to charge more? Probably, even though I wouldn’t like it, I would understand why.

Unfortunately there is probably no accurate and reliable metric for the insurance companies to gauge how responsible a particular dog owner is, which would allow them to charge more for being a irresponsible owner, rather than blindly charging everyone more for owning the “wrong” breed.

Having said that, I’ll do my best to make sure none of my family or close friends ever give business to any insurance company which bans coverage on certain breeds. I hope there will always be pet friendly alternatives, and I’ll do my best to support them, even if it means paying a bit more.

Sorry for the length, as a responsible pit-bull owner this touches a sensitive nerve.

Jenny Says:
June 1st, 2006 at 7:14 pm

It’s a business. Insurance companies have to right to provide coverage and set policy that serve the best interest to them. It’s up to the consumer on buying that particular insurance.

Personally, I think insurance will make more money if they provide coverage for ‘aggressive’ pets but just increase the cost; kind of like insurance cost more if you drive an expensive sports car instead of the regular ole honda accord.

JLP Says:
June 1st, 2006 at 9:53 pm

Chris,

Thanks for the comment.

My point is that there are dogs out there that are more aggressive than others. I remember when my wife and I were looking for a dog, one of the things we looked for was a dog that was good with children. So, there are differences between breeds.

Also, there have been attacks and maulings by pit bulls and the dog’s owners were totally shocked that their dog would do such a thing. I guess what I’m trying to say is that if you own a pit bull or any other more aggressive dog like that, you are taking a chance.

edenz Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 10:10 am

I disagree that this statement can be used as justification that some breeds are more aggressive:
“Also, there have been attacks and maulings by pit bulls and the dog’s owners were totally shocked that their dog would do such a thing.”
People’s suprise at their (poorly trained) dog’s actions has no bearings of the ‘agressiveness’ of a breed. I lived next to a woman who was suprised when her dog attacked other dogs, even though her dog attacked EVERY dog it encountered. This behavior was a direct result of her inability to control the dog as well as not wanting to make the effort to properly care for it.

I think that the breed is more likely to influence the amount of damage that an improperly trained dog can do, not it’s likelihood to be agressive. I’ve known many small dogs that are very agressive, but you really can’t be mauled by a toy poodle.

That being said, I think it’s ok for insurance companies to use the same statistical methods to charge more (or offer coverage) for animals that they do for drivers. Stastically speaking, men under 25 are more likely to get into an accident so they pay more. It’s not really fair to young men who are careful and safe drivers but that’s the way it is.

Offering a discount if your dog passes the AKC Canine Good Citizen test is a really good idea Anandi.

Brad Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:55 pm

All the insurance companies have to do is price the policy so that they are way beyond competitive, pricing themselves out of that business, and the customer will then default to another company that does not discriminate (or discriminate as much) based on breed.

If the insured is gullible enough to pay the premium, then the insurance company should be more than compensated for the risk as long as the premium is priced appropriately.

Comments

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

AllFinancialMatters

A personal finance blog dedicated to discussing such topics as budgeting, asset allocation, 401K, IRA, cash flow, insurance, financial planning, portfolio management, and other areas in personal finance.

Site Sponsors

Recent Posts

Archives

Topics

Subscribe to AFM

Site Sponsors

Some of my Friends are Authors

AFM in the Media

Blogroll (Daily Reads)

Blog Stats

Search

JLP’s Question of the Day