ARTICLE: Insurance industry targets mythical 'biting' breeds

November 16, 2007
Seattle PI

If you own a dog, you could see your homeowners' insurance rates rise, or your insurance decline, based on the breed of dog you have (you know, one of the "dangerous" ones: pit bulls, Rottweilers). Never mind the obedience titles those breeds earn. The industry's promulgation of urban myths about the danger of certain breeds is an effort to gain control of a market for profit.

U.S. dog owners are seeing their homeowners' insurance denied, terminated or rates increased because they own one of the breeds considered dangerous. We know, thanks to the horrific criminal behavior of Michael Vick, what creates a dangerous dog. With the passage of R-67, at least you now "have a voice about what is fair, and what is not."

The insurance industry rails about the cost of dog bites, but ask them how much they pay out for fire or mold. Attorney Larry Cunningham, then professor at Texas Tech University, argues in his seminal piece, "The case against dog breed discrimination by homeowners' insurance companies" (Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, p. 8, 2004), that, "while the industry's aggregate cost figures may sound scary, they misstate the scope of the dog bite problem in the larger context of total claims paid."

In Washington, the insurance commissioner does not track dog bite risk data.

The insurance industry wants to "capture" the niche of dog ownership for a permanent revenue stream in Washington; hence, they have targeted the mythical "biting" breeds. The sensationalism around bite episodes is used to justify underwriting practices that benefit industry profits.

In fact, a Texas company widened the niche by requiring the reporting of the number of dogs in a household. There will be no auto-like discount for "multiple" dogs.

No actuarial data exists for breed-specific bite risk, and the Centers for Disease Control admits its own data is statistically flawed. The industry then argues it does not have to produce any data. Not fair.

Differentially underwriting those who own a dog that has bitten and been declared dangerous according to Washington law by insurers is fair.

But the real tragedy? A new DNA test called the Canine Heritage Test can identify 37 breeds in a "mixed breed" of dog. The tentacles of the insurance industry can now reach yet more deeply -- into the shelters.

October was National Adopt-A-Shelter Dog Month, and the homeowners' insurance industry is licking its own chops. Aetna, State Farm, Safeco and Geico all require reporting of the mixed breed, or breed one owns, on their applications.

If you adopt a dog, you could be forced to test your mixed pup, and if he/she comes back, say, one-fifth Chow, your rates could increase. If your pup is half "pit bull," you could be declined, or your premiums could become unaffordable.

The public policy travesty? The shelters will be economically decimated from a loss of revenue from adoption and licensing fees. And the return rate of dogs to shelters will escalate, then the cost of boarding. Loving, healthy dogs will be put to death.

The insurance industry will then "own" those of us who love dogs, and those who try to save them. Washington must not allow such morally reprehensible policy-making, especially in the wake of R-67.

Until the industry can produce actuarial data supporting underwriting differences based on mixed breed and breed of dog (instead of media sensationalism and flawed CDC data), insurers' underwriting decisions cannot be made based on the mixed breed or breed one owns.

Exploiting Washington shelters for profit is not an option. It is "bad faith."

Washingtonians must insist our legislators protect dog ownership, no matter the breed mix or breed. Legislation must be written and passed this session that disallows insurance underwriting based on a specific breed mix or breed of dog.

Now that's "fairness in insurance."

Article link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/339868_dog16.html