Some Insurers Refusing Coverage Of ‘Dangerous’ Dog Breeds

Some insurers are refuing to underwrite homeowners insurance to people who own dog breeds that are labeled dangerous.  Check out the story hereHere is another story that, for me, highlights the reason this makes sense for insurers — dangerous owners.  Here is another story that I read a few months back, from The New Yorker, about dangerous dogs and bans on them, which makes the same point: the main problem is less a certain breed than the fact that these breeds may tend to be owned by the biggest knuckleheads in society.  These people are not capable of properly socializing a dog, controlling it or using judgment to distinguish when the animal presents a risk of harm to others.  As these links show, animal control authorities are not even able to supervise compliance with orders to control specific dogs that have bitten someone, much less monitor dogs and their owners in general.  Developments like bans on certain breeds and increased insurance costs are merely a recognition that the costs of monitoring are prohibitively high — these other methods aren’t perfect solutions either, but they are at least a step toward increasing the cost of anti-social behavior on dog owners. 

Comments Off on Some Insurers Refusing Coverage Of ‘Dangerous’ Dog Breeds

Filed under First Party Insurance

Comments are closed.