Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Home insurance has gone to the dogs

By STEVE DALE Special to the Times
Published April 5, 2007

Margie Foshe was stunned when, without warning, her homeowners insurance policy from Rockford Mutual was canceled. She was "amazed" to read the company's explanation for nonrenewal: "Pit bulls are not allowed."

Although Foshe admits that her dog, Mocha, has features common to pit bulls, he's not actually a pit bull. That explanation fell on deaf ears. Also, Foshe was told it is "irrelevant" that 5-year-old Mocha has never been involved in a claim or complaint.

When searching for a replacement policy, Foshe of Lee, Ill., got a double whammy. Her other dog, a 7-year-old Rottweiler mix named Radar, is also a liability because many insurers profile Rottweilers as well as all dogs resembling pit bulls.

It turns out insurance companies that discriminate on dog breeds have "blacklists," which vary from carrier to carrier. The Doberman, Akita and even German shepherd often appear on such lists. According to the Boston Globe, one company even refuses to sell homeowners insurance to people with Yorkshire terriers.

Dawn Howard of Bolingbrook, Ill., says she never would have believed such a thing until her insurance company, Allstate, hiked her premium solely because, as her agent said, "You own a breed with high incidence of being dangerous and biting." Howard has chihuahuas. "I really thought they were joking," she says. "If it weren't so stupid, I would be laughing."

Washington state Rep. Tom Campbell is serious about passing a law to prevent insurers from discriminating against dog owners based on breed. This will be his fourth year trying to buck the formidable insurance lobby and get the bill through. He's not giving up. "This is bigotry," he says.

One can argue that Campbell is especially sensitive about this issue. After all, he's a Rottweiler breeder, though he says his own insurance carrier isn't among those discriminating, at least not yet.

Illinois state Sen. Don Harmon doesn't own a dog but is sponsoring a similar bill. "This isn't a political issue; it's a matter of right and wrong," he says. "I have no problem with insurance companies being able to protect their interests. But I have yet to hear a convincing argument that the breed is a determining factor as to whether a dog will be a liability."

That argument, according to Carolyn Gorman of the Insurance Information Institute, a Washington trade association representing the insurance industry, is the history of severe losses insurers have experienced with specific breeds. According to the institute, in 2005, dog bites cost insurers $317.2-million, representing 15 percent of liability claim dollars paid under homeowners' policies.

"Insurance companies have to balance making a profit and being responsible to their bottom lines against being responsible to the public and doing what is reasonable for most of their insurers to keep premium costs as low as possible," Gorman said. "Dog bites are a significant issue, and it seems certain breeds are most often responsible."

Dr. Gail Golab, associate director of Animal Welfare at the American Veterinary Medical Association in Schaumburg, Ill., disagrees. "While certainly an individual company may have its own experience with a certain breed, it doesn't truly speak to what most pit bull-type dogs, Rottweilers or Dobermans are like," she says.

Steve Dale welcomes questions/comments from readers. He will answer those of general interest in his column. Write to Steve at Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, NY 14207. Send e-mail to petworld@aol.com.

[Last modified April 5, 2007, 00:55:29]