Canine Mutiny:
Dog Owners Fight Insurers
State Lawmakers Aim to Stop
Practice of Denying Coverage
To Homes With Certain Breeds
By M. P. MCQUEEN
June 1, 2006; Page D1
Dog owners are biting back at the insurance industry.
There is a push by lawmakers and animal-welfare groups to ban the growing insurance-industry practice of refusing to write homeowners' policies for people who own dogs of certain breeds. Some big insurers, including Allstate Corp. and Farmers Insurance Group, won't cover homes in some states if certain breeds are present. Others exclude the breeds from liability coverage or charge extra for it. The so-called vicious-breed lists include such popular pooches as German shepherds, Akitas and Siberian huskies, along with Alaskan Malamutes, Chow Chows, Doberman Pinschers, American pit bull terriers and their cousins.
The practice is spurring rising complaints by dog owners that their homeowners' and renters' policies have been dropped, or they have been denied coverage, because their dog is on the list. They say the rules unfairly link well-behaved family pets with aggressive miscreants responsible for high-profile attacks.
At least nine states, including Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin, now have bills pending that would prevent insurance companies from dropping or refusing customers because of their dog's breed. In Massachusetts, a proposed bill has been set aside for further study. (Insurance rules and rates are state-regulated.) In 2003, the Michigan insurance commissioner issued an administrative ruling banning the practice in that state. The legislation is supported by animal-welfare organizations including the Humane Society of the United States, the American Kennel Club, and local pet and breeders' advocacy groups.
Insurers, who mostly oppose legislative efforts to alter their dog-breed policies, argue that government public-health studies and their own claims histories indicate that some breeds are more dangerous than others, and therefore pose higher risk of claims for injury and loss. Limiting insurers' exposure to those risks helps keep premiums more affordable for everyone, insurance officials say.
For owners of these breeds, the insurers' rules seem infuriatingly arbitrary. Terri Becker of Lake Arrowhead, Calif., said she has been turned down for coverage by several insurers recently. Ms. Becker, who owns three mixed-breed dogs, says The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., refused her application last year because one of the dogs was part-Chow.
"I can have a gun, but I can't have a Chow. That's kind of crazy," she said.
A spokesman for The Hartford, Joe Loparco, said that the company won't provide new coverage in most states to owners of Presa Canarios, Rottweilers and pit bulls, but that Chows aren't excluded. He also said that without knowing the specifics of the case, he couldn't address Ms. Becker's complaint.
The insurance battle comes as debate is erupting in cities, states, and courtrooms over whether to target certain breeds. More than 100 counties and cities have passed ordinances since 1991 banning or restricting ownership of specific breeds -- especially pit bulls -- or requiring that owners carry large amounts of liability insurance. This year through March alone, 65 such measures were proposed, far outpacing the number for the same period last year, according to the AKC. Dog owners and animal-rights groups have challenged many of these laws in court, and some laws have been struck down. In March, an appeals court in Ohio ruled that local and state laws banning or restricting ownership of pit-bull dogs were unconstitutionally vague...
online.wsj.com
<chart>online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/PJ-AH883B_pjDOG_20060531230740.gif</chart> |
