1
   

Doggy profiling: is it fair?

 
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 08:34 am
"Bad" Dogs Put Costly Bite on Insurers, Homeowners

LOS ANGELES -- Deirdre McDonnell's problem began when she and her dog Carla moved into a new house.

Forced to switch insurance companies after she purchased the home in Alaska, she was notified by one prospective carrier that while the company was happy to insure her hillside dwelling, supported in part by posts, it would not sell her coverage if Carla lived in it.

Carla, a Rottweiler-Labrador mix that McDonnell adopted from a shelter, was on the company's list of prohibited breeds.

"Her mother was a stray Rottweiler," said McDonnell, a lawyer in Juneau, Alaska. "Umialik [the insurer she contacted] refused to insure us at all, even with an animal exclusion. When I asked them how they define Rottweiler I was told, `If your dog's 1 percent Rottweiler, we won't insure you.'"

McDonnell's plight is by no means unique. Across the country, homeowners are finding it increasingly difficult to find insurance if they own dogs, especially breeds identified by insurance companies as animals likely to bite or attack people.

Each year nearly 5 million Americans, about 60 percent of them children younger than 12, are bitten by dogs, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association. Of those bitten, an estimated 800,000 require medical attention, and about 15 to 20 people die.

Insurance companies estimate that about $1 billion is paid out annually in liability claims, with dog bite payments averaging about $13,000 because many injuries require plastic surgery. Most of the children are bitten on the face, usually by a family pet or that of a family friend.

Choosing between home, dog

"It is big," said Stephanie Shain, director of outreach for the Humane Society of the United States. "People are having to choose between their houses and their dogs."

McDonnell, the mother of two young children, finally found a policy with Lloyd's of London that, while costly, allowed Carla to remain part of the family.

"I feel like I don't have a choice," she said. "I'm not giving up my dog."

Insurance companies argue that the enormity of the payouts forces them to exclude owners of certain types of dogs. Some estimates suggest such claims are growing at 2 percent a year.

"Insurance companies have nothing against individual dogs, or individual people," said Jeff Fuller, general counsel with the Association of California Insurance Companies. "We have to deal with statistics. I have never seen a pit bull as a guide dog for the blind."

Across the country, local laws vary widely on what breeds of dogs can be kept as pets. Last month, Denver's ban on pit bulls was erased by a new Colorado law that prohibits what Gov. Bill Owens called "doggy profiling." A proposal this year in the Chicago City Council to ban pit bulls aroused a furor and has not passed.

Some insurance companies will not insure homes where specific breeds are present. Those limits vary from company to company but usually include pit bulls and Rottweilers.

Proposed legislation in California would prohibit insurance companies from excluding specific breeds in policies. Fuller's organization is fighting the new bill.

"There is no industry standard on coverage," said Jeanne Salvatore, vice president of the Insurance Information Institute, an industry association. Because of that, she said, no reliable statistics exist on how many homeowners have been denied policies because of a dog.

Shain, of the Humane Society, said her group has seen a steady increase in the calls it receives from dog owners nationwide complaining about difficulty finding insurance.

Shelters, euthanasia an issue

The problem is compounded for animal shelters that care for a lot of dogs. Their liability extends beyond the shelter if an adopted animal becomes aggressive and injures someone.

For more than a decade, shelters have been reluctant to use euthanasia to control their animal populations and weed out potentially dangerous animals.

"About 10 or 15 years ago we started getting a lot of criticism," said Kate Pullen, director of animal sheltering issues for the Humane Society, talking about shifting public attitudes regarding euthanasia. She said shelters now conduct "behavior evaluations" of dogs before they are offered for adoption but that it is an imprecise science.

"We are seeing people keeping animals that should not be kept," Pullen said. "We have shelters that are not making the best decisions."

The Humane Society and other animal-care organizations argue that branding an entire breed of dog is not the most effective way to prevent attacks.

"The breed is not the best indicator of whether you are going to have a problem with a dog," Shain said, listing many factors that influence whether a dog is aggressive. "Is the dog spayed or neutered? Has the dog lived its life chained outside the house? Has the dog been socialized?"

Experts say most attacks come from non-neutered male dogs. Other factors that contribute to aggression in dogs include lack of training, poor health and provocation, sometimes innocently by a child.

Link (Chicago Tribune: registration required)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,613 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 08:36 am
doggy profiling by breed is utter nonsense;
now 'owner' profiling.........
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 08:41 am
Huh. In all the years I've had homeowners or renters insurance I've never been asked anything about any pets.

Is it fair? I'd think it fair to set a higher rate for a pet owner than someone that does have any pets but a breed by breed rate (or refusal) seems a bit over the top.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 08:47 am
Bo beat me to it...
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 08:51 am
Insurance companies have been doing it to us for so long, they have now decided to do us doggy style? Are you really surprised?
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 08:53 am
Insurance companies are just trying to figure out how to cover the losses they have incurred with their investments recently.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 09:41 am
Some coyotes may get along with sheep. Sheep avoid coyotes. Discrimination, I say!
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 09:42 am
cavfancier wrote:
Insurance companies are just trying to figure out how to cover the losses they have incurred with their investments recently.


and getting rid of the 'assholes' who make those investments is not an option, since they are usually the 'board members', soooooo........! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 11:20 am
It is true, insurance companies are all about risk. For example if you are a 70 year old smoking male, it is going to cost you a lot more in life insurance than a 20 year old non-smoking female. It is all calculated using actuary tables. The insurance companies are doing the same thing for pets. Since they are the ones paying if your dog bites another person and they sue, the insurance company pays. Is it fair that some one with a disease may not be able to be insured? No, but the insurance companies are here to make money.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 11:22 am
Another thing to add, people who own different types are cars are charged more because it is more likely to be stolen. Are we now going to have car profiling?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 11:39 am
I'm not in the habit of coming to the defense of insurance companies (even though I do that as part of my job), but I'm not sure I understand the anti-doggy-profiling argument here. Insurance companies, after all, evaluate risk, and they have always done it on the basis of "profiling."

For instance, when you buy auto insurance, the company will estimate the chances that the car will be stolen. So, if you buy a Toyota Camry, the most popular car to steal, you should expect to pay more for your auto insurance than if you bought a car that was less attractive to thieves, like a 1972 AMC Gremlin.

Paying more for your decision to purchase a Camry is not discrimination, it's not the result of some irrational prejudice against Camrys, and it's not invidious "auto-profiling." It's simply a function of risk analysis and it is at the very foundation of insurance.

So how is evaluating the risk of a particular type of car being stolen different from evaluating the risk of a particular breed of dog biting? There are, to be sure, Rottweilers and pit bulls that will never bite, just as there are Toyota Camrys that will never be stolen. Likewise, there are responsible dog owners just as there are responsible Camry owners. Honestly, I fail to see the difference.

The pit bull owner who wants the same homeowners insurance rate as me (a non-pit bull owner) is, in effect, asking me to subsidize his choice by spreading the risk of his pit bull's propensities to everyone else who buys homeowners insurance. If anyone wants to talk about unfairness here, I contend that's unfair.

It's too bad if a person falls in love with a particular dog, only to find out later that the dog is, in effect, uninsurable, but then it's also too bad if a person falls in love with a Toyota Camry, only to learn later that there's a hefty insurance price tag attached to this particular infatuation. We live in a society that respects individual choice, but it's clear that we have come, as a society, to resent having to pay for those choices.

postscript: I just noticed Linkat's post. Evidently, great minds must think alike.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 12:16 pm
I'd like to see the actuarial tables that list out the number of people injured by dogs and the breeds that are ID'd in each act for each year.

I'd wager that the common "mutt" would be at the top of that list in frequency yet that isn't the choice the Insurance companies are declining to insure.

They do, as you stated, do that with cars. The cars that are most often stolen or involved in accidents have higher rates (or aren't insurable at all).

(There was CDC study is Sept 2000 that listed Rotweilers and Pit Bulls as #1 and #2 for fatalities from dog attacks but they only looked at fatalities and that number totaled 300 over a 20 year period. If that is the insurance industry's "data" it may point the way they are going but it's hardly conclusive if the original story number of 5 million dog attacks/year is accurate.)
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 01:11 pm
btw, the CDC report can be found here:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

You'll note that the generic "mutt" (second only to Wolf hybrids) is pointed to in 12 fatalities where as the mixed-pitbull was in 10 and the mixed-rotweiler was only in 5. Do the insurance companies have higher rates for mutts?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 02:02 pm
fishin': I think you're mis-reading the CDC report -- you're not considering the purebred dogs. In table 2, it shows that pit bulls and pit bull mixes were involved in 76 fatalities, with Rottweilers/mixes in second place with 44 fatalities. The mutts come in a rather distant seventh place with 12 fatalities. Pit bulls and Rottweilers, together, combine for over half of all the fatalities (120 out of 238) between 1979 and 1998. As the report states:
    Despite these limitations and concerns, the data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF [dog bite-related fatalities] in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, [i]there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.[/i]

(emphasis added)
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 03:58 pm
I saw that joe. But how does that jive with the insurance company's statement above; "`If your dog's 1 percent Rottweiler, we won't insure you.'" They aren't just denying the pourbreds. The Rotweiler mixes come in well below the mutts but the insurance companies don't seem to be having any problem with people that own mutts. (You can't really say that the mutts come in 7th either. Since they are, by definition, mutts, they aren't counted in the purebred section.)

Even so, as I said earlier, that report only covers 300 or so fatalities over a 20 year period. I'd still like to see numbers for all 5 million or so dog related injuries annually.

I don't have any problem with them using actuarial tables in figuring risk it just looks like they've stretched things well beyond what the tables reflect
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 05:36 pm
I have engaged in doggy profiling myself. There are some breeds that are far too risky among humans.
0 Replies
 
jb
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 06:54 pm
Interesting. One of my employees moved into a cottage on our property. She asked us if we had a problem with her getting a dog. No problem. She called a few days later from the SPCA. They wanted to talk to me; the landlord: Any objection to her having a dog (no); any size restriction (no); ANY BREED RESTRICTION (no, but it did strike me as an odd question). She ended up with what appears to be a hound/border collie, by the way -rjb-
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 10:06 pm
fishin' wrote:
I saw that joe. But how does that jive with the insurance company's statement above; "`If your dog's 1 percent Rottweiler, we won't insure you.'" They aren't just denying the pourbreds. The Rotweiler mixes come in well below the mutts but the insurance companies don't seem to be having any problem with people that own mutts. (You can't really say that the mutts come in 7th either. Since they are, by definition, mutts, they aren't counted in the purebred section.)

Well, I suppose it all depends on how you view things. From the insurance industry's perspective, something that's "one-percent Rottweiler" (which, of course, is impossible) is a Rottweiler. So a Rottweiler-mix is a Rottweiler. From the mutt perspective, of course, something that's 99 percent non-Rottweiler is a mutt.

fishin' wrote:
Even so, as I said earlier, that report only covers 300 or so fatalities over a 20 year period. I'd still like to see numbers for all 5 million or so dog related injuries annually.

Quite true. I'd also like to know more about the one fatality linked to a cocker spaniel attack.

fishin' wrote:
I don't have any problem with them using actuarial tables in figuring risk it just looks like they've stretched things well beyond what the tables reflect

If all they used were the CDC tables on dog bite-related fatalities, I would agree.
0 Replies
 
greenumbrella
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 07:56 am
Why are there so many vicious dogs in America?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 08:13 am
fishin' wrote:
I'd like to see the actuarial tables that list out the number of people injured by dogs and the breeds that are ID'd in each act for each year.

I'd wager that the common "mutt" would be at the top of that list in frequency yet that isn't the choice the Insurance companies are declining to insure.

They do, as you stated, do that with cars. The cars that are most often stolen or involved in accidents have higher rates (or aren't insurable at all).

(There was CDC study is Sept 2000 that listed Rotweilers and Pit Bulls as #1 and #2 for fatalities from dog attacks but they only looked at fatalities and that number totaled 300 over a 20 year period. If that is the insurance industry's "data" it may point the way they are going but it's hardly conclusive if the original story number of 5 million dog attacks/year is accurate.)


I don't think the "mutt" IS at the top - here, heelers (Australian cattle dogs) top the list...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The Dog House - Discussion by Aldistar
A woman kicked my dog. - Discussion by Ceili
How often do you let your dog offleash - Question by DNA Thumbs drive
Dogs Are People, Too - Discussion by Miller
My dog has kennel cough. - Question by boomerang
High Anxiety - Question by koreyklr
Dogs killing rats - Question by simarloto
jealous new dog - Question by michelle1982
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Doggy profiling: is it fair?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 07:25:42