Conn. Lawmaker Seeks to Ban Homeowner Insurance Link to Dogs

January 26, 2015

  • January 26, 2015 at 1:33 pm
    agent2 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “some say the must pay higher rates or lie about the type of dog they have”.

    So what’s the big deal? Just lie and be done with it. Paying higher rates is just outrageous.

    I guess this is similar to not wanting to call Islam a source of terrorists.

  • January 26, 2015 at 1:47 pm
    Don Quixote says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Clearly this legislator has absolutely no understanding of the concept of insurance or the impact of such things as “strict liability” on losses.

    Dog bites frequently involve children, faces and scarring, which equals big losses and plenty of salivating attorneys who want their cut.

    I love dogs and have a dog myself, but I understand why the insurance company would either not want to take the risk or would need to charge quite a bit more for it. Seems like a simple concept…

    • January 26, 2015 at 2:03 pm
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Well, let’s start underwriting your kids then. My neighbor has a little hellion for a pre-teen. Should they pay more because he “might” injure someone or damage someone’s property?

      • January 26, 2015 at 2:35 pm
        Wayne says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Yes they should, if it can be justified through a study of claims paid and presented that a particular type of child creates a higher incidence of claims and increased claim costs than other children. Choose the defining genetic marker, test for it and price the policy accordingly.

      • January 27, 2015 at 2:46 pm
        CL PM says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Libby – I can tell you that companies are definitely looking at this. It is sometimes called “Household Composition.” The idea is that homes with more residents present more risk for many different types of claims, both property and liability. Most of the data I have seen on this so far is anecdotal, so it may be hard to get DOI’s to approve, but companies will try.

        • January 27, 2015 at 4:05 pm
          Libby says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Interesting. Despite the thumbs down from my Wiki post, I also find it interesting that the majority of “pit bull type” dog owners are 10 times more likely to have criminal convictions and anti-social behaviors as other dog owners. Do companies check criminal background? Of course, many of these dog owners probably don’t buy homeowners insurance.

  • January 26, 2015 at 3:25 pm
    Sara says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    There are no studies that prove certain dog breeds are more likely to bite. If there were I would agree with the increased rates.

    Car insurance costs more for teens than for adults, I believe that is reasonable. We have studies that prove that they are in more accidents. Dog bite statistics are generally either not tracked or only tracked if the damage is severe which skews the data.

    • January 26, 2015 at 4:19 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Sara, there are plenty of studies on this topic. For just one example, here are the findings of a 9-year long study on dog bites and breeds:

      2013 statistics

      32 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2013. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 700 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 78% (25) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population.

      Together, pit bulls (25) and rottweilers (1), the second most lethal dog breed, accounted for 81% of the total recorded deaths in 2013. This same combination accounted for 74% of all fatal attacks during the 9-year period of 2005 to 2013.

      The breakdown between these two breeds is substantial over this 9-year period. From 2005 to 2013, pit bulls killed 176 Americans, about one citizen every 18.6 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 33, about one citizen every 99.5 days.

      In the year of 2013, the combination of pit bulls (25), rottweilers (1) and bullmastiffs (2) accounted for 88% of all dog bite-related fatalities. Notably, the two bullmastiff-mixes3 were littermates that inflicted death within a 6-month period.

      Annual data from 2013 shows that 56% (18) of the fatality victims were children 7-years and younger, and 44% (14) were adults, 25-years and older. Of the total children killed by dogs in 2013, 61% (11) were ages 4-years and younger.

      Annual data shows that when combining all age groups, male and female fatality victims were equivalent, 16 and 16. Amongst children 7-years and younger, however, males were excessively victims, 72% (13), versus females 28% (5).

      In 2013, over one-third, 38% (12), of all dog bite fatality victims were either visiting or living temporarily with the dog’s owner when the fatal attack occurred, up from 32% in 2012. Children 7-years and younger accounted for 83% (10) of these deaths.

      Of this subset of 12 fatalities, 92% (11) were inflicted by pit bulls and 58% (7) involved a babysitter, including a relative or friend under the directive to watch a child 7-years or younger. All 7 of these child deaths were inflicted by pit bulls.

      47% (15) of all fatalities in 2013 involved more than one dog; 16% (5) involved breeding on the dog owner’s property either actively or in the recent past, and 9% (3) involved tethered dogs. All 3 chaining deaths were attributed to pit bulls.

      Dog ownership information for 2013 shows that family dogs comprised 47% (15) of all fatal attack occurrences; 78% (25) of the attacks resulting in human death occurred on the dog owner’s property and 22% (7) resulted in criminal charges.

      California led lethal dog attacks in 2013 with 5 deaths. 100% were attributed to pit bulls and 60% resulted in criminal charges. Texas followed with 4 deaths and 0% criminal charges. Arkansas and South Carolina followed, each with 3 deaths.
      http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2013.php

      • January 27, 2015 at 9:28 am
        K.W. says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        It appears that the dogsbite.org is run by one individual who may be exhibiting a bias against a particular breed. The website below is one (of many) that discredit the statistics stated in the referenced website.

        http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2010/03/the-truth-behind-dogsbiteorg.html

        The bottom line is that any dog has the potential to bite.

      • January 27, 2015 at 11:02 am
        RT says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Dogsbite.org is not legitimate – it is one of primary sources of anti-pitbull statistics and it’s been proven time and again that they pick and choose their numbers to prove their case. Please cite a truly independent and neutral source and I’ll take your comment seriously.

        • January 27, 2015 at 11:24 am
          Murdzy says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Wrong. Please cite your instances of “picking and choosing” their numbers. Better yet, look at the pictures of the kids who have been mauled and face years and years of reconstructive surgery. Not to mention the years of emotional counseling they will need. The only common denominator is the fighting-dogs. If you want to own a dog that can KILL someone, you should pay more to cover the costs injuries, funerals, etc.. Geesh…

          • January 28, 2015 at 10:11 am
            KY jw says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            K.W. already provided one source, I think you can read it for yourself. No doubt there are other sources. I have to mention, again, that liars figure and figures lie. It’s all about how you present data.

            I found the data Rosenblatt provided incomplete. This is only fatalities. How many bites/attacks are there each year? How many dogs are there? Is the number of fatalities statistically significant? For that matter, compare dog bites to other events that kill or maim children like bicycle accidents. Just because you present data doesn’t mean it has any weight.

            We all agree the dogs that bite cause significant injury and horrible scarring. That has nothing to do with whether or not the statistics on dogsbite.org are valid.

            Separate the emotional response from the data.

          • January 28, 2015 at 3:44 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            “I found the data Rosenblatt provided incomplete. This is only fatalities. How many bites/attacks are there each year? How many dogs are there?…”

            You know, KY – I completely agree. Looking at just fatalities opposed to all attacks, looking at one year of data, or any of the other limited criteria used in that report can not show trends nor can it result in any useful analyses.

            Your points are all valid and if there was a way to delete a comment, I’d be happy to do that on my dogbite “study” post.

        • January 27, 2015 at 12:21 pm
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          RT,

          Please list all of the truly independent sources for dog bite statistics.

          Better yet, provide your statistical analysis and cite your source.

          I am sick and tired of people discrediting the data and sources of others without providing their own.

          • January 27, 2015 at 12:31 pm
            Amanda says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Here is the CDC data. Pitt bulls, Rottweilers and German Sherpards kill the most people–and Pitt Bulls lead by almost a 2 to 1 margin over Rottweilers: http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf

          • January 27, 2015 at 1:19 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            I had no idea there was controversy around the legitimacy of dogbite.com! The CDC study does support those findings, at least specific to dog-bite fatalities from 1979 to 1998. I wonder if non-fatal bites skew those results or not.

          • January 27, 2015 at 6:41 pm
            Don't Call Me Shirley says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            It’s dogbite.com-gate!

          • January 28, 2015 at 10:15 am
            KY jw says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            A lack of complete data doesn’t need statistical analysis, just an acknowledgement that the data is skewed.

    • January 26, 2015 at 5:51 pm
      SWFL Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      My goodness Sara, you really stepped in it with that comment.

    • January 27, 2015 at 9:43 am
      Chris Vardiman says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Well Sara, I am not certain of your assertion about dog bite studies, but the reality is that when those dogs of certain breeds do attack, the probability of serious injury increases exponentially. Cocker Spaniels, who are prone to bite, will not cause the same level of injury as a Pit Bull, Chow or Rottweiler etc.

  • January 26, 2015 at 4:02 pm
    Ellie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is just a reason for a carrier not to insured a risk. But let’s all remember that is what you are insuring is “risk”.. There is nothing saying that because you own a pitbull, Rott, or any other large breed dog that it’s going to bite someone. Most people are responsible dog owners and should be treated as such. It’s mostly the small dogs that bite anyway, we all know that, right?

    • January 27, 2015 at 2:54 pm
      CL PM says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      I am sad that the perception of carriers is that the are looking for reasons to not insure a risk. How does that make any business sense? Carriers are in the business to sell policies so the more they right, the better. The smart carriers are looking for ways to write homes with dogs at the right rate, so they charge more for some breeds. Or, some carriers will offer to write the risk at a lower rate if the homeowner agrees to exclude coverage for the dog. (cue the debate on whether exclusions hold up in court) Smart companies aren’t trying to figure out how to write fewer policies – that is not a recipe for success.

      • January 27, 2015 at 3:05 pm
        Jim says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        So, everybody’s rates should increase 200% because you choose to own a pit bull?

        • January 27, 2015 at 4:06 pm
          Libby says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          I don’t think anyone is saying that.

        • January 28, 2015 at 10:17 am
          KY jw says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          That’s what this politician is saying, not what anyone on this thread is saying.

          • February 2, 2015 at 8:22 am
            Amanda says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Dog bites constitute 1/3 of all homeowner’s liability claims, so I think it’s fair to have certain underwriting guidelines regarding dogs.

  • January 26, 2015 at 4:09 pm
    Tim George says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This lawmaker needs to wake up and find other more worthwhile causes. Just last week, a young child was mauled to death by a neighbors pit bulls! As for the comments I have read, Insurance companies have the statistics and the loss experience! Time to get back to important matters.

    • January 28, 2015 at 8:51 am
      sad CT resident says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      I don’t know where you’re from, Tim, but as a resident of CT that’s how it works here. Government ignores the actual pressing problems of this state (crushing debt, roads in awful condition, residents fleeing the state in droves) and focuses on dogs who may or may not ever bite anyone.

  • January 27, 2015 at 7:58 am
    Ron says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The solution is so easy.

    Exclude any liability related to animals. Allow the insured to purchase liability for animals, but must schedule their animals by species and breed. Similar to scheduled jewelry, the owner must obtain an “appraisal” indicating the species and breed. If there is a claim and the animal is not scheduled, no coverage.

    • January 28, 2015 at 10:18 am
      KY jw says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Ok with me. I agree that insurers have to be able to price the risk accordingly.

    • January 28, 2015 at 2:10 pm
      Bill says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      What you say is so obvious that it will take years to implement, unfortunately.

    • January 29, 2015 at 6:02 pm
      Don't Call Me Shirley says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      I like your idea Ron, except there is one problem. The dog owner chooses not to buy the optional coverage. The dog bites a little girl in the face, permanently disfiguring her. The insurer denies the claim, rightfully so. Then, along comes Mr. Lawyer. The case goes to trial, and the jury sees the little girl, while the big, bad, greedy, evil insurance company refuses to pay the claim. The insurer is likely to have to pay the claim, unless they settle first. You know how juries (and even judges) can be. Burglars have even gotten awards for being injured while robbing someone’s house.

  • January 27, 2015 at 9:24 am
    Amanda says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As someone who has suffered a severe injury from a dog bite, I think this is ridiculous. Some dogs are genetically more prone to violence than other ones. This proposed law is about as stupid as the “one bite” rule we have in Pennsylvania, whereby a dog can hurt someone with no provocation and there are no ramifications until the dog does it again. Sad that we protect dogs and their owners more than victims.

    • January 27, 2015 at 9:28 am
      Cheryl says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Pennsylvania law changed several years ago. There is no longer a “one bite rule”.

    • January 27, 2015 at 10:55 am
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      “Some dogs are genetically more prone to violence than other ones.” But this is not necessarily the entire breed, but those that have been inbred or bred to fight. Just like we don’t like to sterotype people, you can’t stereotype dogs by breed.

      Now, Ron, if we were to get an “appraisal” that could determine the propensity for biting that would be one thing. But I’m not sure that’s possible. Do you know?

      • January 27, 2015 at 12:26 pm
        Amanda says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        The data clearly shows certain breeds are either more prone to hurt people and/or that inflict more severe injuries. See Rosenblatt’s data above. A pit bull in my neighbor ripped a child’s face off. When was the last time you heard of a Golden Retriever or poodle doing that? Let’s get real here, these dogs KILL and maim people every year.

      • January 27, 2015 at 12:29 pm
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Libby,

        You said, “Just like we don’t like to sterotype people, you can’t stereotype dogs by breed.” However, insurance stereotypes people all of the time whether by age, gender, location, credit, etc. we just accept it becasue there is enough data to support the practices.

        Actuaries have plenty of frequency and severity loss data by breed. The “appraisal” would need to come from a veterinarian or this could be a possible start up business who can determine the dominiant breed of a dog.

        If a specific dog within a breed does not have a propensity to bite because they were raised properly, then do not buy the coverage. Then the owner assumes the liability of the dog instead of teh insurance company. Fair enough?

        • January 27, 2015 at 1:22 pm
          Libby says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Ron & Amanda – if I had all the answers, I wouldn’t be on this website right now. I’d be in Tahiti on my yacht.

          All I can say is I had a favorable experience with a pit bull, but her owner was also very responsible with her. Yes, these breeds tend to bite more and their bites can be more severe. But not all of them are aggressive. It has much to do with their breeding history and background. However, things happen when owners are not responsible with pets that have the capacity to harm others.

          As a dog lover, I’m torn.

          • January 27, 2015 at 1:41 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Libby,

            Based on your example, your friend can just not purchase the coverage and assume the liability risk of her dog.

            I don’t think it is a frequency issue with pit bulls, it is severity. And that is where the big bucks in liability come into play.

          • January 27, 2015 at 1:46 pm
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Yes, but if something were to happen outside of her control, she would not have insurance. That’s not good for society either.

  • January 27, 2015 at 10:12 am
    Sandra Bailey says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Insurers should pick on all dogs or no dogs. I personally was bitten by a toy poodle, and the only disfiguring dog attack I am familiar with was committed by a bassett hound. If this really is a liability not adequately calculated in the rates for liability insurance spread over all insureds (and I don’t believe that), then coverage should be available as an add-on and otherwise excluded.

  • January 27, 2015 at 1:23 pm
    Louie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    anyone know if chihuahuas are rated higher? If not, they should be…Mean little bastards. My aunt had one named Pedro once. He was approached by a Doberman. The Doberman backed off within seconds.

    • January 27, 2015 at 1:48 pm
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      I have one. She’s scared of her own shadow.

  • January 27, 2015 at 1:39 pm
    Libby says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I did find these interesting factoids:

    “A Pit bull’s genetic make up was developed so it would be a good fighting dog. However, this genetic disposition does not mean that all Pit bulls are aggressive or that they are prone to attacking other animals. Pit bulls require the same amount of socialization training as other dogs during puppy-hood, possibly more. Like any dog, a Pit bull that is well socialized is less likely to attack when it feels threatened. The Pit bull breed is known to be more “rough and tumble” during play time, but frequent socialization with other dogs can mean that a Pit bull pet goes into adulthood with a positive feeling towards other dogs. Without proper socialization, they are more prone to act aggressively.”

    “Several studies determined that pit bull owners, and owners of other “vicious” or “high risk” breeds (most commonly identified as Akita, Chow Chow, Doberman Pinscher, Rottweiler, and Wolf-mix), are more likely to have criminal convictions and are more likely to display antisocial behaviors. A 2006 study compared owners of “high risk” dogs to owners of “low risk” dogs. “High risk” dogs included “vicious” dogs by breed (e.g., pit bulls) or “vicious” actions (e.g., any dog that had bitten, attacked, or killed a person or other animal). The study determined that “high risk” dog owners had nearly 10 times as many criminal convictions than did “low risk” dog owners.[47] A 2009 study and a followup 2012 study generally supported these findings.”

    It looks again like the problem is with the owner and not necessarily the breed.

    I’ll admit these are from Wikipedia, so feel free to sling mud on the source.

    • January 27, 2015 at 2:22 pm
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Wow. We have some wiki-haters out there!

  • January 27, 2015 at 2:21 pm
    Fido says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Government should stay out of that arena and let insurance companies insure or not insure. Regulate where it is necessary for solvency. Let the market do the rest. Bark Woof.

    • January 27, 2015 at 2:32 pm
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      You sound ferocious. Do we need to put you down?

  • January 27, 2015 at 3:46 pm
    Yogi Polar Berra says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So soon a Connecticut legislator has forgotten about Travis the chimp, who mauled her owner’s friend in CT and was shot dead by police fearing for their own safety. Short memory strikes again. Yes, I know a specific set of dog breeds are being discussed. Does the species really matter?

    Owning a dangerous animal should mean an insurance exclusion or higher premiums. If a homeowner doesn’t want to pay, then acquire a ‘safe pet’. If a new law or underwriting approach is implemented, dangerous dogs then owned should be ‘grandfathered in’, surcharges paid, and no such dogs may be acquired thereafter. Perhaps dangerous pets should only be owned by people living in rural areas, far away from neighbors?

    Oh, gotta go…. the mailman is running up to my door, chased by the neighbor’s poodle ……

    • January 27, 2015 at 4:08 pm
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Don’t laugh. My grandmother got in between 2 toy poodles fighting and had deep scars for the rest of her life!

      You bring up another interesting point. What happens if you don’t own one of these dogs when you write the coverage but acquire one during the policy period? So many things to think about!

  • January 27, 2015 at 6:39 pm
    Don't Call Me Shirley says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I have a Chupacabra, and he’s never bit anyone!

  • January 28, 2015 at 2:14 pm
    Companyman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    While I can agree that “any dog can bite” (so can my kids) it isn’t as easy as looking at certain breeds as “any dog”…

    Typically what the concern is for an insurance company isn’t the frequency but the severity. Realizing that Chihuahuas are a biting breed there are a large number of them and are relatively harmless. I am not going to turn them down. Staffordshire Terriers/Pit Bulls are not as common and are known to have a severe bite. While the pit bull at hand may be an awesome dog 364 days of the year, I don’t want to insure him on the 365th. Insurance 101 for many is loss avoidance. Why write the home policy when I can focus on the myriad other acceptable risks in the marketplace.

  • January 31, 2015 at 11:54 am
    Jess Sayne says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A burglar broke into a house one night. He shined his flashlight around, looking for valuables when a voice in the dark said, ‘Jesus knows you’re here.’

    He nearly jumped out of his skin, clicked his flashlight off, and froze. When he heard nothing more, he shook his head and continued.

    Just as he pulled the stereo out so he could disconnect the wires, clear as a bell he heard ‘Jesus is watching you.’

    Startled, he shined his light around frantically, looking for the source of the voice. Finally, in the corner of the room, his flashlight beam came to rest on a parrot.

    ‘Did you say that?’ he hissed at the parrot.

    ‘Yes’, the parrot confessed, then squawked, ‘I’m just trying to warn you that he’s watching you.’

    The burglar relaxed. ‘Warn me, huh? Who in the world are you?’

    ‘Moses,’ replied the bird.

    ‘Moses?’ the burglar laughed. ‘What kind of people would name a bird Moses?’

    ‘The kind of people who would name a Rottweiler Jesus.’

    Just a reminder that, in today’s world, sometimes there is good reason to own one of these dogs, if they are well-trained and you are a responsible owner.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*