Washington Bill Asks Insurers to Consider Dogs' Deeds, not their Breeds
West News • March 18, 2005
The only problem Dee Robison has with her favorite Doberman pinscher, Darby, is that the 90-pound pooch gets a little jealous when she turns her attention toward the television.
"He'll just stand ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: Dog Liability
Posted On: March 21, 2005, 1:18 pm CST
Posted By: Umpire
Comment:
As usual, we're trying to force things, rather than solve them with freedom of choice.
Insurers should not be forced to write any exposure that they don't want -- why do we think we can abolish their freedom of choice? And homeowners should have the choice to buy from that insurer, or change to a new one, that will insure their dog.
Simply allow the insurers the choice of an animal liability exclusion. Those that create one can then make rates for dropping that exclusion, and picking the coverage back up. Insureds without pets then save on coverage that they don't need. Those that have harmless dogs can elect not to buy the coverage, because they feel their dog is safe (and live with the bills, if their dog ends up causing a problem).
If the government is afraid that the public will be harmed, then only allow the exclusion for the first, say, $100k of loss -- turning it into a big deductible. That would protect the public from the "big damage" issues, while allowing the insurers to avoid the smaller ones, still providing the homeowner with the choices they deserve.
Create solutions with freedoms left in tact. Allow the marketplace to work as intended. If an insurer likes to write dogs, then their premiums will reflect that, and they will have a homeowners flyer distributed at all the vet's offices as their advertising of choice.
Solving things by freedoms works for everyone. Create choices, not mandates.
West News 
Subject: Dog Liability
Insurers should not be forced to write any exposure that they don't want -- why do we think we can abolish their freedom of choice? And homeowners should have the choice to buy from that insurer, or change to a new one, that will insure their dog.
Simply allow the insurers the choice of an animal liability exclusion. Those that create one can then make rates for dropping that exclusion, and picking the coverage back up. Insureds without pets then save on coverage that they don't need. Those that have harmless dogs can elect not to buy the coverage, because they feel their dog is safe (and live with the bills, if their dog ends up causing a problem).
If the government is afraid that the public will be harmed, then only allow the exclusion for the first, say, $100k of loss -- turning it into a big deductible. That would protect the public from the "big damage" issues, while allowing the insurers to avoid the smaller ones, still providing the homeowner with the choices they deserve.
Create solutions with freedoms left in tact. Allow the marketplace to work as intended. If an insurer likes to write dogs, then their premiums will reflect that, and they will have a homeowners flyer distributed at all the vet's offices as their advertising of choice.
Solving things by freedoms works for everyone. Create choices, not mandates.