Solving the insurance crisis facing dog owners

Without a doubt, rottweiler owners need insurance that will protect them from injuries caused by their dogs. The current cut-backs on canine liability insurance are the biggest issue facing rottweiler owners -- far more important than the threat of breed bans. Insurance for canine inflicted injuries must be made available and affordable to all but the owners of truly dangerous and vicious dogs.

Consider the statistics and you will know why: of the 800,000 annual dog bites that require medical attention in the USA, more than half of the victims are children, and more than half of the child-victims are bitten on the face. The medical costs and other losses stemming from a bite to the face ranges from the tens of thousands of dollars to the hundreds of thousands. Imagine the effect of a $100,000 judgment upon a homeowner! He literally could lose his house! That is why homeowners insurance without protection against dog bites is an illusion. Your house is not fully covered, because with one snap of your dog's jaws, you can lose it -- unless your policy protects you.

Companies selling homeowner insurance should be required to include coverage for canine-inflicted injuries, either as part of the standard policy or as an "add-on." That having been said, there are four good questions we have to ask ourselves.

The first question is whether everyone who owns a home should have to pay for this coverage, even if he does not own a dog. People who do not own dogs should not have to pay for the damage that is done by dogs; conversely, dog owners should be legally required to have this insurance.

The second question is whether the owners of 5-pound dogs and other small dogs should have to pay the same amount as the owners of dogs that are big, strong, and capable of being dangerous. There are distinctions among the types of dogs, in that small dogs with small teeth generally are incapable of inflicting the same degree of damage that can be done by big dogs with big teeth. Therefore the cost of this insurance should be more or less "by the pound," meaning the size of the dog.

The third question is whether those who own one dog should pay the same amount as those who own two, three, four or more. The answer is obvious: the more dogs you own, the more you should have to pay. It works that way for cars too. And there is an additional reason here: your dogs work in a pack, while your cars do not. In other words, when it comes to having multiple dogs, the sum of the parts is greater than the whole, because dog packs are more dangerous than dogs working alone.

There is no question, however, about insurance for those who own "bad" dogs (meaning those having a history of biting people, or have been declared dangerous by the authorities). The ownership of these dogs is not to be encouraged, and certainly must not be subsidized in any way. Therefore, the insurance industry should not be required to insure the owners of these dogs. However, it would be best for society and for the victims if some type of insurance were available. Perhaps the insurers can create a separate pool for those who wish to continue owning these dogs, and are willing to pay high insurance premiums to do so.

In summary, insurance companies should not be permitted to cancel policies based upon the breed of dog, and should be required to make canine liability insurance available. However, the premiums should be based upon the size, number and history of a person's dogs.

I can place any insurance in California.  Please call me :

Christie Cummins, Farmers Insurance

714 925 5068