I am a CSR in New York and deal with this issue on a every day basis. Most of our standard companies have developed a hot “dog” list where they won’t write certain breeds of dogs i.e. Rotweilers, German Shepherds, Dobermans, Pit Bulls… There are times however when an Underwriter will consider writing a homeowner police with one of these breeds if the agent knows the family and the family has had the dog for a number of years with no incident and the dog in question is non aggressive. I can appreciate an insurance company’s decision not to insure when there is the presence of a dog that falls under one of the above breeds but to penalize the majority of law abiding, responsible people who have pets is unfair and harms the majority of these people when it comes to securing homeowner insurance. Companies should be utilizing their Underwriters more fully in looking at the entire risk and trusting the relationship and communication between them and the agent. What I believe should ultimately happen is that an exclusion should be in place on a homeowner policy that excludes coverage for these breeds and let the responsibility lie where it should all along with the homeowner. It is the homeowner’s responsibility to care for their pets properly and by doing this prevent any harm to children and adults alike.
I agree with Sue, there should be an exclusion that will stand up in court. The responsibility should fall on the homeowner. Most communities have a leash law and most of the attack cases we hear about, the dog is loose. This is a law that should also be enforced more strongly.
I am a CSR in New York and deal with this issue on a every day basis. Most of our standard companies have developed a hot “dog” list where they won’t write certain breeds of dogs i.e. Rotweilers, German Shepherds, Dobermans, Pit Bulls… There are times however when an Underwriter will consider writing a homeowner police with one of these breeds if the agent knows the family and the family has had the dog for a number of years with no incident and the dog in question is non aggressive. I can appreciate an insurance company’s decision not to insure when there is the presence of a dog that falls under one of the above breeds but to penalize the majority of law abiding, responsible people who have pets is unfair and harms the majority of these people when it comes to securing homeowner insurance. Companies should be utilizing their Underwriters more fully in looking at the entire risk and trusting the relationship and communication between them and the agent. What I believe should ultimately happen is that an exclusion should be in place on a homeowner policy that excludes coverage for these breeds and let the responsibility lie where it should all along with the homeowner. It is the homeowner’s responsibility to care for their pets properly and by doing this prevent any harm to children and adults alike.
I agree with Sue, there should be an exclusion that will stand up in court. The responsibility should fall on the homeowner. Most communities have a leash law and most of the attack cases we hear about, the dog is loose. This is a law that should also be enforced more strongly.