Bout time. If an insured wants to keep a pit, rot, dobermann, akita, chow, wolfe hound or any aggressive dog they’re on their own. An insurance company should not pay for the obstinance or stupidity of a few.
Had a meter reader come into my house years ago to read the meter in the basement. I went down the stairs to the meter and discovered the reader was not there. I went back upstairs and found him rolled up in a ball in the living room with my parrot stiing on his back looking very pleased with himself. The meter reader had received no injuries.
A few days later I got a form letter that said unless my vicious dog (crossed out at the word parrot handwritten in)was restrained, the meter reader would not come back into my house and my water service might be discontinued.
In addition to pit bulls et al, green parrots should be on the list too.
Note also that the exclusion in the endorsement is only for canines identified in the endorsement.
What if the homeowner gets a dog and it is not identified in the endorsement? What if the homseowner’s dog is perfectly well behaved, but socially entertains other dogs on the premises?
This sounds like the old “Specified Driver Exclusion” endorsement meant to eliminate coverage under the auto policy for a named driver. It was used to permit a carrier to provide coverage under the family auto policy except if the auto were being driven by or under the control of a specific/named driver that the carrier would not cover or the insured did not want to pay for, usually a youthful driver.
The use of the endorsement was tricky as the courts would often invalidate the exclusion after a claim, especially a major BI claim as it was “against the public interest”.
I am probably dating myself by even bringing up this old endorsement and it is no longer used/legal in many states.
When face with an otherwise acceptable risk a carrier may try to find a way to eliminate the one unacceptable portion of the risk. This approach often backfires if there is a claim involving the excluded risk.
Wait till my wife finds out I put FiFi down….but an exclusion is an exclusion and she has to understand…..too bad they didn’t put in for this exclusion in the BEGINNING of this past winter..all that walking in the snow..that was tough.
If I read this correctly, it’s an exclusion for liability from ALL dog breeds. Yeah…that makes lots of sense. Another back door tactic. No wonder the insurance industry has such a wonderful reputation.
most states now have statutes for restraining/licensing “dangerous dogs”, dogs of any breed that have bitten or injured people or damaged property. This lets the good dobermans off the hook and the evil chihuahuas take the blame when they get an attitude. This makes perfect sense – exclude the bad dog, keep the good dog unless he gets obnoxious.
As a past rottweiler owner I have trouble with the exclusion. Not the exclusion for a specific dog or naming a breed but this exclusion goes too far. “from direct physical contact with a canine or canines identified in endorsment.” I have no problem excluding Dog bites or excluding all dogs for biting but what about accidents. When I was a claim adjuster one of the worst claims I handled was from a bull dog. At a BBQ a 6 year old was playing fetch with the bull dog. The child tossed the ball, dog chased it, a woman stepped in fron of the now full speed bull dog. The result was a shattered ankle, 3 surgeries and several screws and plates. this “accident” would also be excluded as it is “direct physical contact”.
After first checking with AAA about American Bulldogs before buy it I found she was not an excluded dog. As 2009 American bulldogs are now excluded. What am I to do give her away? I keep her and I risk law suits if she hurts someone uninvited in my yard. This is totally stupid what will it be next a German Shepard?? Your dog could be next and this will leave you open to suites that can make you financially in ruins. Anyone with info on this please let me know. Thanks
Bout time. If an insured wants to keep a pit, rot, dobermann, akita, chow, wolfe hound or any aggressive dog they’re on their own. An insurance company should not pay for the obstinance or stupidity of a few.
I can think of a few more things that would fall under the “An insurance company should not pay for the obstinance or stupidity of a few” umbrella.
Where does one stop?
Had a meter reader come into my house years ago to read the meter in the basement. I went down the stairs to the meter and discovered the reader was not there. I went back upstairs and found him rolled up in a ball in the living room with my parrot stiing on his back looking very pleased with himself. The meter reader had received no injuries.
A few days later I got a form letter that said unless my vicious dog (crossed out at the word parrot handwritten in)was restrained, the meter reader would not come back into my house and my water service might be discontinued.
In addition to pit bulls et al, green parrots should be on the list too.
And emotional distress. My Macaw can cuss like a drill sergant and scream at 111 Db.
Note also that the exclusion in the endorsement is only for canines identified in the endorsement.
What if the homeowner gets a dog and it is not identified in the endorsement? What if the homseowner’s dog is perfectly well behaved, but socially entertains other dogs on the premises?
…What if the homseowner’s dog is perfectly well behaved, but socially entertains other dogs on the premises?
“Property damage” as a result of direct contact is also excluded.
This sounds like the old “Specified Driver Exclusion” endorsement meant to eliminate coverage under the auto policy for a named driver. It was used to permit a carrier to provide coverage under the family auto policy except if the auto were being driven by or under the control of a specific/named driver that the carrier would not cover or the insured did not want to pay for, usually a youthful driver.
The use of the endorsement was tricky as the courts would often invalidate the exclusion after a claim, especially a major BI claim as it was “against the public interest”.
I am probably dating myself by even bringing up this old endorsement and it is no longer used/legal in many states.
When face with an otherwise acceptable risk a carrier may try to find a way to eliminate the one unacceptable portion of the risk. This approach often backfires if there is a claim involving the excluded risk.
Wait till my wife finds out I put FiFi down….but an exclusion is an exclusion and she has to understand…..too bad they didn’t put in for this exclusion in the BEGINNING of this past winter..all that walking in the snow..that was tough.
Hey Rocket88, I bet your wife will sign a spousal exclusion once she learns of FiFi and now that Spring is close.
Bob, you got that right! But she also wanted the Abusal exclusion eliminated. Looks like I’m in for a long Spring….
Just about all companies now do have exclusions for any type of quote “vicious breeds”.
If I read this correctly, it’s an exclusion for liability from ALL dog breeds. Yeah…that makes lots of sense. Another back door tactic. No wonder the insurance industry has such a wonderful reputation.
most states now have statutes for restraining/licensing “dangerous dogs”, dogs of any breed that have bitten or injured people or damaged property. This lets the good dobermans off the hook and the evil chihuahuas take the blame when they get an attitude. This makes perfect sense – exclude the bad dog, keep the good dog unless he gets obnoxious.
I think that is a step in the right direction, and will make homeowners be more responsible with their dog ownership
As a past rottweiler owner I have trouble with the exclusion. Not the exclusion for a specific dog or naming a breed but this exclusion goes too far. “from direct physical contact with a canine or canines identified in endorsment.” I have no problem excluding Dog bites or excluding all dogs for biting but what about accidents. When I was a claim adjuster one of the worst claims I handled was from a bull dog. At a BBQ a 6 year old was playing fetch with the bull dog. The child tossed the ball, dog chased it, a woman stepped in fron of the now full speed bull dog. The result was a shattered ankle, 3 surgeries and several screws and plates. this “accident” would also be excluded as it is “direct physical contact”.
After first checking with AAA about American Bulldogs before buy it I found she was not an excluded dog. As 2009 American bulldogs are now excluded. What am I to do give her away? I keep her and I risk law suits if she hurts someone uninvited in my yard. This is totally stupid what will it be next a German Shepard?? Your dog could be next and this will leave you open to suites that can make you financially in ruins. Anyone with info on this please let me know. Thanks