Dogs and Home Insurance

[goose491 0]

Hello all,

I'm in auto and home insurance and a recent development here in Ontario is that companies are now refusing home insurance to people with certain breeds of dogs.

The idea is that we do not wish to expose ourselves to the additional liability issues of a possible attack. I know that coverages differ from one place to the next. Here in Ontario, your home insurance comes with Liability coverages which responds when legal action is brought against you. That is to say, in this case, that if your dog bites someone and they sue, your home Insurer is required to respond, providing legal representation and flipping the bill should a judgement be awarded against you.

The breeds in question include but are not limited to german shepherds, pit bulls, rottweilers and Dobermans.

Where I agree that it is frustrating to a consumer -I am a dog owener/lover myself- I can also see the valid viewpoint of the insurance companies. There is no additional premium earned for the additional exposure and we all know that the risk of being sued for even the smallest incident is very real.

The reason I am posting this is that there has been a real backlash to these decisions. Has anyone here had any bad experiences with their insurance companies concerning their four-legged family members? Has anyone here experienced a lawsuit concerning a dog attack either victim or owner? Please share your experiences or suggestions should you have any.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[juanesky 0]

Well, I guess this time Karma actually ran over your dogma

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[boxingrrl 0]

I used to have a Rottie and couldn't get homeowners/renters insurance with him (in two different states in the US). I guess I could get the insurance but either had to lie about having him and/or not make a claim if something had happened-- which it never did. I do understand the argument from the insurance companies' perspective, but I'm a firm believer in it not being the dog, but the owner.

What do police officers do for homeowners insurance when they house their K9 companions (generally shepherds, Rotts, etc.)?

I think that it's an unfortunate case of a few bad apples. Too bad insurance companies don't have the $/interest/resources to actually investigate individual dog owners and their dogs to determine eligibility for coverage. These blanket exclusions are the easy way out, IMHO.

[Rdy2skydive 0]

A friend of mine bought a house before she got her Akita. When the dog was about 5 or 6 years old it attacked (for no reason) a neighbor who had come to do some work on the house. The attack was so brutal that his face is permanently disfigured and he had to have his arms re-attached at the shoulders. Since the dog attacked the guy on her property, the police could not confiscate the dog.

The neighbor sued, her homeowners insurance paid out over $250,00.00 and dropped her policy. I lost touch with her but last I talked to her she was unable to get new insurance until she got rid of her dog.

I also have a co-worker who has a Rottweiler that has a bad temper. Even though it never attacked anyone, someone from an insurance company paid a surprise visit to the house when she was at work and saw the dog. He also learned the neighbors were afraid of it. She had difficulty getting a homeowners policy and had to pay a lot more money when she findally did.

It's unfortunate but some people can be very irresponsible with their pets and if it's a dog that is frequently bred to be vicious, no one wants the liability.

[Jib 0]

One of the problems with dogs is in some states, you can be liable though the dog never bit anyone before.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[goose491 0]

Quote

... but I'm a firm believer in it not being the dog, but the owner.

Oh absolutely! I would even place the blame on some breeders before I place it on the animals themselves. But the legislation is blind to who's fault it is. You are the owner and You are the one being sued... thusly, you insurance policy must respond.

Quote

What do police officers do for homeowners insurance when they house their K9 companions (generally shepherds, Rotts, etc.)?

I think that falls under a completely differnt set of guidelines. Do you mean when an Officer brings his K-9 partner home? Don't quote me on this but I beleive a cop dog is covered under legal liability coverage for it's department. So regardless of where an incident might take place, if you were attacked by one, you'd be sueing the cops and not the homeowner.

Quote

I think that it's an unfortunate case of a few bad apples.

but a few bad apples... at a million bucks a pop... You see, we aren't only protecting ourselves but our collective clients as well. Simply put, if we pay out more in losses in a given year then what we earn in premium from you, the clients, guess what happens to you policy premium next year?

Quote

Too bad insurance companies don't have the $/interest/resources to actually investigate individual dog owners and their dogs to determine eligibility for coverage.

Well that's an interesting thought. I don't know how feasible it would be however... We could never provide any sort of legislation to turn down one rottie and not the next. It would become an underwriting nightmare to have to consider all factors involved and nobody can acurately predict an attack.

Quote

These blanket exclusions are the easy way out, IMHO.

Well, right now, it's the only way out of the immediate hot water. It's obviously not the answer because if every company decides to follow suit, people will not be able to get coverage. It's just that these cases have become more and more popular. That's really why I'm posting this. The blanket is really just a band-aid. The product (coverages) will have to be modified in the future.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[goose491 0]

Quote

One of the problems with dogs is in some states, you can be liable though the dog never bit anyone before.

I'm not sure I understand that. Liability means pretty much 'legal responsibly' where there was negligence. Your pet is your responsibility but you are not 'liable' until there is an incident and there is a degree of negligence on your behalf. In a court of law, the onus is on the plantif to prove that you were negligent. If he/she succeeds, you are liable for the incident and a judgment is awarded against you... paid out of your homeowners Liability Coverage.

The thing is, we have to provide you the legal representation so even in the case of a bogus lawsuit, we have major expenses and our ability to subbrogate them is very limited.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[maxmadmax 8]

I think that a dog's behavior is partially derived from it's owner.

So with that logic:

Mean Dog= Mean Owner

Don't go away mad....just go away!

[goose491 0]

Thanks for posting.

See, here are two very sad examples. It almost seems like you can't win.

In your first example, your friend ended up having to shell out extra $$$ to cover her home. That's what I'm leaning toward personnaly. I think if you own a house, and one of the breeds of dog which has been shown more likely to attack, you should pay an additional premium for the additional exposure. This protects all involved.

Perhaps that's just what we'll see.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[Hoot 0]

I was turned down for renters insurance because I have a German shepherd. Getting turned down was not what upset me, asking "do you have a dog" at the end of the hour long phone call then telling me they cannot insure me did. Ask the disqualification questions first, then move on to the other stuff.

goose491, Why can't you have insurance and just not cover the dog?

There are 2 types of people in this world: those who like Neil Diamond and those who don't. --Bill Murray

[goose491 0]

Quote

goose491, Why can't you have insurance and just not cover the dog?

Well, that's one thing to consider. It's a little more complicated then that though. For one, legal liability is legal liability. If you've got a child under 12 who goes out and breaks your neighbors windows, you are legally responsible and we respond on your behalf... we could not provide you liability coverage and exclude all situations that include this family member.

For two, we act as your legal representative when action is brought agaisnt you and I quote from our policy booklet: "We will defend any suit against you alleging Bodility injury or Property Damage and seeking compensatroy damages, even is it is groudless, false or fraudulent."

This means that even if we did exclude your dogs in a particular policy, we are still your legal reps should someone bring action against you for the above-reasons. Law suits aren't cheap and win or lose, we flip the bill for it.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[DShiznit 0]

Quote

I think if you own a house, and one of the breeds of dog which has been shown more likely to attack, you should pay an additional premium for the additional exposure.

I think that is bullshit. What about people with snakes? Wait, I got it..... What about parents with troubled or bully-some kids. That's it. Maybe we should charge a premium for that as well.

I have two dogs, one Akita and one Queensland Heeler. While the Akita is known as being a very fierce breed, this one is completely harmless (albeit she is a year old). My QH is 5x more likely to attack to protect me and my family before the Akita will, and she is bigger than my QH.

Will she become more protective the older she gets? Probably, if I don't teach her well and instill good values in her.

Bad owner = bad dog.

[Hoot 0]

Thank you for the info How can you go about finding renters or home insurance if you have a dog on the list?

There are 2 types of people in this world: those who like Neil Diamond and those who don't. --Bill Murray

[goose491 0]

Quote

Thank you for the info How can you go about finding renters or home insurance if you have a dog on the list?

Unfortunately, all you can do is open up the yellow pages and asks specifically before you get a quote (to avoid wasted time)

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[goose491 0]

Quote

I think that is bullshit. What about people with snakes? Wait, I got it..... What about parents with troubled or bully-some kids. That's it. Maybe we should charge a premium for that as well.

All I can say to that is that we go strickly by the numbers. The courts see considerably more dog attack cases each year then they do snake attacks. If I was to speculate, I would say flat out, that if a snake is present (vs. a dog), less of your visitors would be likely to pet it or hold it. It's not free to roam the house and it won't jump up on a Jehovas Witness, trying to be friendly, knocking him/her to the ground and breaking his/her scardy-cat-butt. If it were to escape, it would be much less likely to end up in your neigbors back yard, chewing on their kids. And if you took it to a friends home, less likely to chew up the furniture or cause considerable damage to a rug by sh*tting on it.

The bully kids are an excellent point, but as I said, we do not encounter nearly as many ridiculous court cases because of them.

[Jib 0]

Quote

Quote

One of the problems with dogs is in some states, you can be liable though the dog never bit anyone before.

I'm not sure I understand that. Liability means pretty much 'legal responsibly' where there was negligence.

There doesn't have to be negligence in some places. There can be strict liability.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[goose491 0]

Okay I get it. Some people use the words 'responsible' and 'liable' interchangeably.

You are absolutely responsible for your dogs actions, and thusly, you are legally liable should something happen. There need not be 'negligence' for you to be liable but in any case where someone is trying to prove your liability, they do so by showing that your were negligent.

i.e. The dog bit me and would not have if the owner had kept it from escaping the yard. or The dog bit me and the owner should have warned me about it's temperment... that sort of thing.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[BikerBabe 0]

As the owner of a chow chow (well, he's about 90% chow, I think), I make sure to always be with my dog when someone comes on the property. We have signs posted, as well.

I always warn visitors about Leo's ideosyncrasies and the proper way to approach him.

Trust me, I never woold have raised him this way, but I got him from the pound when he was two, and adult chows are notoriously hard to retrain. I don't know his background, but I have to think he was abused because is a fear biter, and he's afraid of everything, even to this day.

I know how to take care of him, and I try to be a responsible owner. It pisses me off that the few irresponsible owners out there are making it difficult for the majority of owners to get insured.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!