When Erin Sullivan’s employer offered her a promotion and relocation to Orlando from Baltimore, she jumped at the chance to leave the cold behind in favor of the Sunshine State. Little did she know that her excitement would soon be quashed as she attempted to find a rental home – and subsequently, renter’s insurance – that would accept her, her Pit Bull, and two Pit Bull-mixes.
Photo by Rob Bartlett
288
Stories of breed discrimination by insurance companies (and rental property owners) abound as insurance companies increasingly refuse to write homeowner’s and renter’s policies for people who own breeds of dogs that the insurance industry considers to be “dangerous.” Many opponents argue that the industry’s decisions are based on faulty assumptions and improper use of dog bite statistics. Authors of scientific studies on dog bites have argued against the use of their data to support breed-based decision-making by insurers and legislatures. Major veterinary and breed registry organizations have also strongly opposed breed discrimination in insurance. None of these expert opinions seem to dissuade the insurance industry, however.
A Triple Whammy
When Sullivan embarked upon a search to find rental housing in Orlando that would accept her and her dogs, she prepared resumes for her dogs, wrote letters explaining that she would be more than happy to provide liability insurance through a renters’ policy that would cover the dogs, that she’d pay extra deposits, provide stellar references, and Canine Good Citizen (CGC) and Temperament Testing certificates.
That strategy seemed to work – at first. She soon discovered that although she might find a suitable home to rent, the insurance policy of the home’s owner would not allow for Sullivan’s dogs to be on the premises. It took Sullivan “a couple of months of searching and worrying and being rejected by, literally, dozens of agents and private homeowners” before she found a great landlord who had a State Farm policy and allowed her to have her dogs live with her in the house.
It turns out that Sullivan’s dogs were not the only factor that made it difficult for her to find an insurance provider. Sullivan learned that national insurance carriers had been leaving the state of Florida in droves, declining to renew – never mind issuing – policies due to high risk associated with Florida’s hurricanes. Her choices were already limited by her choice of moving to Florida, and her choice in dogs made the task even more difficult!
Insurance Landscape
Homeowner’s and renter’s insurance are categorized by what the industry calls “cause of loss.” These are property damage (fire, lightning, and debris removal; wind and hail; water damage and freezing; theft; all other) and liability (bodily injury and property damage; medical payments and other; credit card and other). Dog bites are in the latter category.
States are responsible for crafting laws that regulate insurers within their borders, and in no state is it mandatory that coverage be offered to every consumer who applies.
The problem is this: Many insurers base their decisions to cover renting or home-owning dog owners solely on the breed of the dogs, not the individual characteristics of the applicants’ dogs. The insurance industry has prejudged entire breeds of dogs as being too risky. And few states have laws that compel insurers to write policies for all dog owners.
When it comes to insuring homeowners or renters with dogs, a few insurance companies consider each applicant on a case-by-case basis that includes the dog’s history — querying the home owner as to whether the dog has a bite history (this is the case with my insurer, USAA). Others, however, maintain that their decisions are based upon their experience with claims for a certain breed, taken from their own database of the number of claims for dog bites and dog attacks per breed. Some base their decisions on lists of dogs considered to be dangerous; others cite published reports on the frequency of dog bites for certain breeds.
The Insurance Information Institute reports that, “Insurers generally oppose legislation that would require changes to their dog breed practices. They contend that government public health studies and the industry’s claims histories show that some breeds are more dangerous than others and are higher loss risks.”
When I inquired with the states of Florida and Georgia, I received similar replies: It’s legal for insurance companies to decline to offer coverage to individuals who own certain breeds of dogs or other animals that are considered aggressive. This seems to be the case across most of the U.S., although a few more forward-thinking states have passed laws that prohibit insurers from discriminating against dog owners based only on breed (Michigan and Pennsylvania, for example).
Valid Rationale?
It’s true that dogs bite. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs annually, resulting in an estimated 800,000 injuries that require medical attention. Information from a December 2010 report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality shows that in 2008, 9,500 Americans received “serious” dog bites. Treating patients admitted to a hospital for dog bites cost hospitals an average of $18,200 per patient and $54 million overall. The report also claims that over a 15-year period, hospitalizations for dog bites increased 100 percent.
The Insurance Information Institute reports that dog bites account for more than one-third of all homeowners’ insurance liability claims, and that the total cost of the dog bite-related claims was about $412 million in 2009. It reports that the average cost of dog bite claims was $24,840 in 2009, while the number of claims increased 4.8 percent to 16,586.
Four hundred and twelve million sounds like a lot of money, but let’s put it into perspective. Property damage accounts for about 96 percent of all claims, with liability claims accounting for the remaining 4 percent of claims – and dog bites accounting for a bit more than a third of liability claims.
Even if we assume the insurance industry has a grasp on dog bite numbers, the statistics they lack are reliable reports of bites by breed, which is a story in itself due to concerns about breed misidentification.
Two published reports seem to serve as the basis for breed discrimination related to dog bites by insurance companies. The first was a 1997 report, “Dog-Bite-Related Fatalities – United States, 1995-1996,” published in the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) weekly “Morbidity and Mortality Report.” Authors of this report analyzed data from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and media accounts of dog-bite-related fatalities in the NEXIS database.
The second report is “Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States between 1970 and 1998,” published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) in 2000. Its authors also analyzed data from HSUS and media accounts.
Here’s the interesting thing: Both the CDC and American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) concluded that their own analyses cannot be used to infer breed-specific risk for dog bite fatalities, nor to identify specific breeds most likely to bite or kill. The CDC went so far as to stop tracking dog attacks by breed in 1998. Both organizations have further qualified that their reports should not be used for policy-making decisions. Why? Both cited several reasons, including the fact attacks by some breeds seem to be regarded as more news-worthy than other breeds, resulting in a disproportionate number of articles about bites by certain breeds. Another factor cited was that identification of breeds is often subjective. Dog-bite-related fatalities, said the JAVMA study, “may be differentially ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression.”
Karen Delise, author of the Pit Bull Placebo and founder/researcher for the National Canine Research Council, notes that the CDC recommends “A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention” by the AVMA Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions. The CDC says, “Dog bites are a largely preventable public health problem, and adults and children can learn to reduce their chances of being bitten.” Their stance is that public education, not breed bans, will prevent dog bites.
Unfortunately, the CDC and JAVMA studies are still cited by some insurance companies as the basis for their policies to deny coverage to people with certain breeds of dogs.
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
If you are a homeowner with a mortgage, your mortgage company requires that you have insurance. Many landlords require their tenants to have a renter’s insurance policy. You are not required to have liability insurance if you own your home outright or your landlord does not require it, but going without insurance leaves you open to significant liability. The website Dog Bite Law advises that “Every dog owner needs to have homeowner’s insurance or renter’s insurance that (a) provides coverage for, and does not exclude, injuries inflicted by dogs or animals in general, and (b) has a limit of at least $100,000 for personal liability.”
bartlettimage.com
288
Attorney Larry Cunningham, Assistant Dean for Students and assistant professor of legal writing at St. John’s University School of Law in New York, had firsthand experience with breed discrimination in Lubbock, Texas, when he went to buy a home and sought to purchase homeowner’s insurance to cover him and his two dogs, a Rottweiler and a Chow-mix. As a result of his eye-opening experience, he penned an informative piece, “The Case Against Dog Breed Discrimination by Homeowners’ Insurance Companies.”
Cunningham is clear on one point: You must not lie about your status as a dog owner when applying for insurance. “Consumers should definitely shop around, since there are a few companies who will consider an individual family’s circumstances and whether the family dog has a bite history. Above all else, however, families should not lie. Lying on an insurance application is a felony in most states (‘insurance fraud’) and can invalidate the policy later on if there is a claim.”
The American Kennel Club (AKC) is against breed discrimination by insurance companies, stating, “If a dog is a well-behaved member of the household and the community, there is no reason to deny or cancel coverage. In fact, insurance companies should consider a dog an asset, a natural alarm system whose bark may deter intruders and prevent potential theft.” Below are some of the tips they offer to dog owners on how to find homeowner’s insurance (from the online AKC Homeowners’ Insurance Resource Center):
–Ask your dog-owner friends who they use for insurance; if your dog is a purebred, check with your dog’s national breed club for ideas. I’d add to this: also check with local breed and training clubs, and other local dog resources such as dog daycare centers and trainers.
–Contact your state’s insurance commissioner to get a list of the insurance companies doing business there. Tell the commissioner of your frustration over companies’ discriminatory practices. The AKC recommends that, if you have had a policy cancellation or refusal to renew, ask the commissioner to review your policy. Remember, laws might exist, such as in Pennsylvania or Michigan, that prohibit insurance companies from discriminating by breed.
–Agents within the same company may have different policies. Talk to more than one representative for a particular carrier before giving up.
–Contact your state senator or representative and let him or her know the difficulties you are having. Ask that she introduce legislation prohibiting insurance companies from discriminating against homeowners based on the breed of dog they own. (Note: The AKC’s Government Relations Department has materials to help with this.)
–Provide proof that your dog has been trained, and/or has his CGC.
–Consider buying a separate liability policy or separate rider to your existing policy that is specifically directed toward your dogs.
Erin Sullivan’s solution was to get an umbrella policy tied to her car insurance policy that offers liability insurance and covers the dogs. Unfortunately, she could not find any rental policies or homeowner’s policies that would insure her. She says, “At this moment, I do not have any renter’s insurance; no one down here in Florida will write a policy for my dogs, except Citizens (Property Insurance Corporation). And it would only exclude the dogs; it would not cover them.”
In Cunningham’s case, after weeks of calling nearly every insurance agent in Lubbock, he obtained insurance through the Texas Farm Bureau, an organization that he says “advocates for farmers and farming issues.”
I queried other individuals in similar situations; there are those who have foregone insurance; others have lied about their dogs; one built her own home after being asked to leave her rental apartment and also finding restrictions from some neighborhood associations; and one is paying an additional $1,200 a year for a policy that has no breed restrictions.
The Stark Reality
Doggone Safe is a nonprofit organization dedicated to dog bite prevention through education and dog bite victim support. Co-founder and President Joan Orr says, “We think that the history and characteristics of the individual dog and the owner characteristics should be considered rather than the breed. This is difficult for insurance companies since they base everything on statistics and the stats indicate that certain breeds bite more.
“This does not take many other important variables into account, but I am not sure how else they could do it. Teenage and young adult males pay huge car insurance premiums (three or more times what females pay) because statistically they get into more accidents. This is not fair on the boys that are safe and cautious, but it is the way insurance risk assessment works.”
I asked Dean Cunningham what would be needed to convince state insurance regulators to step in and push through changes that would help dog owners. “State legislatures step in when there is political support behind particular regulation,” he says. “For example, in the mid-1990s, it came to light that new mothers were being discharged from hospitals within 12-24 hours of giving birth because the insurance companies were not paying for longer stays. State legislatures stepped in and required insurance companies to pay for at least 48 hours. There was a political uproar that supported the legislative change. I’m not sure the same political pressure exists with the breed discrimination issue.”
Lisa Rodier shares her home with her husband and senior Bouvier, Jolie.
