The Crisis of Choosing Between Owning a Dog and Obtaining Home Owners Insurance (Part

If you’re loving dog decides to bite how will it affect your home owners insurance?<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O></O>

<O>
</O>
25 July 09<O></O>

<O>
</O>
By Dean A. Ayers<O></O>
Lead Investigative Reporter<O></O>
NationalDogPress ©<O></O>

<O>
</O>
Dogs love their friends and bite their enemies, quite unlike people, who are incapable of pure love and usually, have to mix love and hate, especially on their own private property or in their own home. But if your loving dog decides to bite one of those enemies that trespass on your property, how will that affect your home owners insurance?
We look to the universe, to the world around us, to each other, and, if we are believers, to the invisible world of owning our dog(s) is sacred, and if we have one more basic desire - voiced or not, recognized or not - it is that all these God given rights to own and protect our dogs, pets and animals on our private property be on our side.
We want life without government intrusion on our pets and animals to be our ally: helping us, empowering us, enabling us to be safe and happy. We want good things without animal control officers to come our way: our internal strife and heart felt wounds healed, our loneliness banished, our power restored, our fears allayed, and this can only occur by a true ownership of a dog, pet or other animal with ‘Intrinsic value’. We want alienation of our dogs, pets and animals to be replaced with canine acceptance by our neighbors, friends, family, and animal control so that we all live in harmony and belonging as allies to society, impoverishment with abundance, bondage with liberation, and darkness with light with our canine(s) at our side.
Then comes the reality of owning a dog when you own or rent your home and have to acquire home owners insurance. The reality is… that of having to identify to the insurance company that your own a dog.
When you get home owner insurance quotes, it is best to tell the agent or broker if you have a dog. Many insurance companies have special policies concerning dog ownership. Having a dog can raise your rates or make it impossible for you to get complete coverage on your home.
It seems that insurance companies are more interested in their bottom line than in man's best friend. People sue for dog bite and attacks more often now and the cost of covering that risk on home owner insurance is increasing.
Overall, insurance companies paid out over $300 million in dog bite claims in 2001. More and more, they see dogs as a risk they are unwilling to take. They can lower their costs by not insuring people with dogs. They can also get more money to pay claims by increasing premiums to dog owners.

<O>
</O>
There are two basic ways insurance companies deal with dogs.<O></O>
First, they have a list of dog breeds that they will refuse to cover. This list is based on several factors. If that breed has been known to bite more often, it will be on the list. If it has a bad reputation, it can also be blacklisted. Dogs can also be put on the list because of research done by the company or by the Center for Disease Control.
Some of these insurance company banned dog breeds are: pit bulls, Dobermans, Rottweilers, and wolf hybrids. There are currently seventy five other breeds that are usually found on these lists.

<O>There are currently 75 banned dog breeds by various insurance companies across the United States as follows:
</O>

1. AIREDALE TERRIER
2. AKBASH
3. AKITA
4. ALAPAHA BLUE BLOOD BULLDOG
5. ALASKAN MALAMUTE
6. ALSATIAN SHEPHERD
7. AMERICAN BULLDOG
8. AMERICAN HUSKY
9. AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER
10. AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER
11. AMERICAN WOLFDOG
12. ANATOLIAN SHEPHERD
13. ARIKARA DOG
14. AUSTRALIAN CATTLE DOG
15. AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD
16. BELGIAN MALINOIS
17. BELGIAN SHEEPDOG
18. BELGIAN TURVUREN
19. BLUE HEELER
20. BOERBUL
21. BORZOI
22. BOSTON TERRIER
23. BOUVIER DES FLANDRES
24. BOXER
25. BULLDOG
26. BULL TERRIER
27. BULL MASTIFF
28. CANE CORSO
29. CATAHOULA LEOPARD DOG
30. CAUCASIAN SHEPHERD
31. CHINESE SHAR PEI
32. CHOW-CHOW
33. COLORADO DOG
34. DOBERMAN PINSCHER
35. DOGO DE ARGENTINO
36. DOGUE DE BORDEAUX
37. ENGLISH MASTIFFS
38. ENGLISH SPRINGER SPANIEL
39. ESKIMO DOG
40. ESTRELA MOUNTAIN DOG
41. FILA BRASILIERO
42. FOX TERRIER
43. FRENCH BULLDOG
44. GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG
45. GOLDEN RETRIEVER
46. GREENLAND HUSKY
47. GREAT DANE
48. GREAT PYRANEES
49. ITALIAN MASTIFF
50. KANGAL DOG
51. KEESHOND
52. KOMONDOR
53. KOTEZEBUE HUSKY
54. KUVAZ
55. LABRADOR RETRIEVER
56. LEONBERGER
57. MASTIFF
58. NEOPOLITAN MASTIFF
59. NEWFOUNDLAND
60. OTTERHOUND
61. PRESA DE CANARIO
62. PRESA DE MALLORQUIN
63. PUG
64. ROTTWEILER
65. SAARLOOS WOLFHOND
66. SAINT BERNARD
67. SAMOYED
68. SCOTTISH DEERHOUND
69. SIBERIAN HUSKY
70. SPANISH MASTIFF
71. STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER
72. TIMBER SHEPHERD
73. TOSA INU
74. TUNDRA SHEPHERD
75. WOLF SPITZ
If your dog is not on this list, it does not mean you cannot get insurance. It just means your insurance will not cover anything to do with the dog.
Second, there are insurers that have decided to look at dog risks on a case-by-case basis. These companies do not exclude the dog from the home owner policy unless there is a solid reason to do so. They will, however, raise your home owner insurance quotes if they find that the dog poses any threat.

<O>
</O>
There are things you can do to get better coverage.<O></O>
If you have a dog that is on the list of dangerous dogs, you might consider putting him in training. A trained dog is a more controllable dog. One of the main reasons certain breeds of dogs are dangerous is that they are breeds that need to be trained. If their instruction is not completed, they might become vicious.
Get proof of your dog's training when he goes through the course. If you show it to an insurance agent, it might make a difference in your quote. Especially if the company covers dogs on a case-by-case basis, it might help.
You still may not get the home owner insurance quotes you think you deserve. You can get special insurance that covers the dog only. This frees the home owner insurance company to give you a quote you can accept.
So to put dog ownership and responsibility all in perspective, if you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a home owner’s policy with an insurance company.
http://animalsclubfreedom.typepad.c...me-owners-insurance-part-1-of-2-articles.html

 

Re: The Crisis of Choosing Between Owning a Dog and Obtaining Home Owners Insurance (

(Part 2 of 2 Articles)<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O></O>
Dogs have never been more a part of our lives than they are today. Even though nearly 45 million American homes have at least one canine family member, dogs are being forced out of their homes by various dog ban legislation and by home owner’s insurance outrageous premiums as a result of legislation dog insurance mandates. These mandated dog insurance policies are being pushed by various animal rights activist groups, and law making people who ‘buy into’ the local media ‘hype’ when a dog bite incident occurs on private property or in the community. Additionally, these slanted propaganda media blitz’s about dangerous dogs and potential dangerous dog breeds are over-emphasized by the main stream media to ‘push’ dogs into being banned out of entire communities. In fact, this “potential dangerous dog” media hysteria is occurring nation wide in ever-increasing numbers, however this article's factual information contend that the headlines fail to tell the whole story about actual and realistic dog behavior.
For a real example of what ‘propaganda’ dangerous dog and dog bite ‘hype’ can do, you have to look no farther than in Denver, Colorado. Denver has one of the toughest pit bull bans in the country. Some 2,000 pit bulls were put to death there last year alone because of it. Denver, CO. has allegedly become known as the ‘dog hating’ capital of the nation.
Around the country, banning pit bulls has become the most popular answer to the potential ‘dangerous dog’ question. Many states and the municipalities alike, just like Omaha, Nebraska, and Mills County, Iowa, have now implemented major animal care and control legislation and these areas like the rest of the country have jumped on the animal rights dangerous dog 'ban' wagon. In Mills County, Iowa if your 'harmless' dog escapes off your property three times, the County will designate your dog as a “dangerous dog.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize this tyranny legislation is going to have a great economic hardship on the dog owner’s home owner insurance premium and even the dog, if the owner can no longer afford to keep the dog due to fees, fines, and potential confiscation and euthanasia of the dog. Additionally, a cursory review of the Mills County, Iowa animal care and control ordinance disclosed there is no lawful and constitutional ‘due process’ afforded in the legislation for proper hearings and testimony for the dog owner, before the county animal control authorities can ‘legally’ confiscate, seize or euthanize your dogs. Like Mills County, Iowa a vast majority of these ‘animal care and controlling’ dog ordinances and legislation ‘fail’ to implement any constitutional ‘due process’ what so ever in their animal control regulations. Instead these ordinances and legislation designate animal control authorities the ability to ‘make life altering judgments about your dogs, without fact or proven evidence’ to ‘label’ your dog as a ‘dangerous dog.’ Without any lawful and constitutional means of evidence or hearing to do so animal control can invoke search, seizure, confiscation, and euthanasia of your dog on private property without a criminal act having taken place.
Even in the Mills County, Iowa animal care and control ordinance their “Board of Supervisors’ controlling these communities and locals, are giving themselves a ‘dictatorial’ authority to direct dogs be ‘euthanized’ at their discretion of any facts, without any true lawful hearing for the dog owners, to present a defense and witnesses on their behalf. And this is not just in Mills County, Iowa, this is happening across the USA in all communities and counties nation wide. This is complete and total ‘tyranny’ of government in animal control, thus causing insurance companies to also implement tyranny in home owner insurance policies, making it almost impossible to ‘afford’ to keep your dog on your own property.
The identification of a potentially dangerous dog always begins with the biggest and saddest stereo-types of the popular man loving dogs like the Rottweilers. The Rottweiler dog breed is ranked second only to pit bulls for their involvement in fatal dog attacks, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Little wonder that they've been singled out for special rules and restrictive animal control regulations. But let's not forget German shepherds, which also are high on the fatal-bite list. Also add Doberman pinschers, Akitas, Chows, Belgian Malinois, Alaskan Malamutes, Siberian Huskies, Irish Wolfhounds, Great Danes and Shar Pei, just to name a few. All of which are becoming among the chosen dog breeds being banned or strictly regulated under various current Breed Specific Legislation (BSL), “Dangerous Dog” legislations, and ultimately by legislation ‘mandated’ dog bite insurance policies of $100,000 or greater per dog all the way to a million dollar mandated dog bite policy for one dog on private property.
Insurance premiums such as this being ‘mandated’ in animal legislation will destroy any possibility of a responsible dog owner to keep their dog, or they face becoming a ‘criminal’ for defending their dog on their own private property. These tyranny dog legislation and ordinances in all communities are insuring that any lawful attempt by you as good law abiding citizens to prevent access to your dogs on your private property can be overcome by animal control simply going to a magistrate and stating the owner refuses inspection access to their private property, in these tyranny animal ordinances. No evidence of a ‘crime’ need be presented to obtain a warrant to enter your private property anymore with this kind of tyranny in the legislation and ordinances. Good bye dog owners, if you resist, and goodbye to your dogs thru fees, fines, confiscations, seizures, and dog euthanasia without any legal and proper constitutional hearing to prevent these ‘assassinations’ by animal control authorities nation wide. And if you manage to even get your confiscated dog back, it will cost you dearly, in fees, fines, RFID mandatory chipping, spay/neuter before they can be returned, license fees, and boarding for the animal, or you will ‘not’ get your dogs back from animal control and their humane society shelters. Essentially this is a 'perverted' legal maneuver for the county or municipality to ‘steal’ your dogs away from you, and sell them for a profit (as a rescue) while billing you for the expenses of the entire affair. The insurance companies making these dog ‘ban’ lists or ‘blacklists” of dog breeds may not be the direct ‘villain’ in these tyranny legislations, but they sure are playing directly into the hands of the law makers that are ‘mandating’ these tyranny insurance policies on owners of the newly designated ‘banned’ or designated ‘potentially dangerous’ dog breeds, which also include any ‘look alike’ dogs as well.


Continued

 

Re: The Crisis of Choosing Between Owning a Dog and Obtaining Home Owners Insurance (

How's that for scary? Are you as a responsible owner, of one of these dog breeds wide awake now? How about just owning a dog that looks like one of these banned dog breeds?

The number of breeds already deemed dangerous should be enough to make any dog owner dizzy. But the proliferation of breed-specific legislation and dangerous dog legislation was initially sparked the various dangerous dog Summits around the country and also includes dog bans on any mixes thereof, as well as dog bans on many dogs of a certain size.

In Fairfield, Iowa for example, any dog over 100 pounds is subject to regulations. By definition alone, that would include such breeds as the borzoi, the Great Pyrenees, the Newfoundland and the St. Bernard. Some dogs that have caused serious injury have managed to escape the bans for now.

Last year, there were 26 human fatalities from dog bite injuries. It's unclear how many serious bite injuries dogs inflict each year, but estimates based on the last major study of cases treated in hospital emergency rooms puts the number at around 334,000.

Children under 10, the main victims of dog bites, are two times more likely to drown in a five-gallon bucket, and 1 1/2 times more likely to die from injuries caused by playground equipment, than they are to die from a dog attack.

Some figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also may help put the dog-bite situation into perspective: Between 1997 and 2002 in Colorado, one child was killed by a dog. Between 1997 and 2002 in the United States, one child was killed in an alcohol-related motor-vehicle accident every day.

If we have a dangerous-dog problem in specific areas it is because twenty-five percent of dogs involved in fatal attacks are chained or otherwise confined excessively. Others are poorly trained or poorly handled guard dogs. Or used as a macho status symbol for young gang-bangers. Some dogs are victims of domestic violence.


Chained dogs are also 'not' the problem:

Many poorly thought out, inappropriate and misguided "tethering" laws are being proposed around the country. These restrictive 'tethering' laws would be in many breed types, inappropriate in a dog's proper care with any responsible dog owner. Many performance dogs ‘prefer’ to be outside and are best chained for their own protection. Experts in proper dog care performance have found that dogs that are permitted to roam freely are more apt to join up with other free roaming dogs and attack. Of course, there are those that are chained "just because" and not well cared for to begin with. Some call them 'junk-yard' dogs.


Breed bans are an emotional response to unfortunate incidents:

They're a response to dog attack fear, not to facts. All dogs bite, and all can potentially cause serious injuries. No scientific studies have proven that one breed bites more than any other.

Existing animal-control laws aren't properly enforced. If they were, many of the problems related to dangerous dogs, mistreated/mishandled junk-yard dog-chained dogs, or dogs running loose would be lessened. When animal control targets 'petty' animal rights issues for criminal action, they are taking away serious potential to stop actual dangerous dog situations, caused by the poor quality handling/training in the owners.


When breeds are banned or designated as ‘dangerous dog’ breeds:

The irresponsible dog owners will continue to ignore the laws, or turn to other breeds, re-creating the problem. Shelter systems and animal-control 'claim' they may not be able to handle all the surplus animals. Actually the facts are disclosing animal shelter/rescue destructive practices to sustain a 'pet-overpopulation' in order to seek more animal control funding and donations.

Studies have shown that animal-control officers cannot identify "pit bull terriers" beyond a reasonable doubt and have miss-identified dogs that did not look like a pit bull, even if it was 50 percent pit bull; yet the dog was not considered a pit bull. But if a dog 'looked' like a pit, it was considered a pit, no matter what the percentage of the breed.

One thing that always stands out about dogs is that dogs throughout history are documented and known to be entirely a ‘responsive’ species. This Investigative Reporter notes that "we can breed them and train them to be any way we want them to be”. All dogs just want, is just to please us. If we humans as their owners want our dogs to herd, they'll do it. If we want our dogs just to just cozy up with us on the sofa, they'll do that. So if we ask our dogs to become aggressive and violent, either intentionally or through irresponsibility, “they will respond that way."


The dogs aren't the bad guys. Animal law making people are.

The dogs are the victims, not just of irresponsible breeders and owners but of the violence that pervades of our whole society. No one in law considers the ‘Intrinsic value’ established by precedent setting lawful court cases that establish dogs as being more than just ‘chattel.’ No lawful ‘due process’ is included in the animal control legislation that meet a constitutional challenge. Rather these tyranny animal control laws are approved ‘knowing’ that virtually no one owning a dog, can sustain a lengthy and costly court battle to establish the ‘unconstitutional’ provisions within these tyranny animal care and control laws on the books, nation wide.

On one level the dangerous dog prevention measures need to be about restoring the family image of the bully breeds. Also about objecting to the breed-specific laws and potentially dangerous dog breed laws that threaten to deprive dog owners of their animals and about turning pet owners and breeders into responsible animal property owners.


But at a deeper level, it's about ending the cycle of violence by starting a campaign of kindness.

"Kindness" is to the owner's animals, as kindness is to each other by not 'over-reacting' to isolated dog attacks by installing and promoting 'bad' dangerous dog legislation. It's that simple.
But each of us as individuals and as a society will make the world a better place for all of us if we only give our dog's love, teach them kindness for each of us and each other, and give kindness to all animals, with a chance to thrive in preserving dog and pet ownership with freedom on private property with dog ownership responsibility. In this manner we can then avoid the crisis of choosing between owning a dog and still being able to obtain home owners insurance.

http://animalsclubfreedom.typepad.com/animals-club--freedom-national-org-inc-non-profit/2009/07/the-crisis-of-choosing-between-owning-a-dog-and-obtaining-home-owners-insurance-part-2-of-2-articles.html

 

Re: The Crisis of Choosing Between Owning a Dog and Obtaining Home Owners Insurance (

StopBSL also has some excellent information in a blog

http://www.stop-bsl.com/blog/2009/07/are-you-and-your-pooch-covered.html

 

Re: The Crisis of Choosing Between Owning a Dog and Obtaining Home Owners Insurance (

I'm suprised Jack russell is not on that list.

 

Re: The Crisis of Choosing Between Owning a Dog and Obtaining Home Owners Insurance (

NELL BELL YOU HAVE MAIL (pm). THANKS.

 

Re: The Crisis of Choosing Between Owning a Dog and Obtaining Home Owners Insurance (

Hi check the below link it gives more info about Insurance policies

Insurance Policies

 

Re: The Crisis of Choosing Between Owning a Dog and Obtaining Home Owners Insurance (

Insurance companies are such scam artists, they will do anything to make money and not have to pay out I hate them. You can pay in and nothing ever happen but god forbid a natural disaster or somthing happens to you and your house they dont wanna pay out. They put all these stipulations on you with no intention of ever paying anything out.

 

Re: The Crisis of Choosing Between Owning a Dog and Obtaining Home Owners Insurance (

Just wanted to give a heads-up: bought our house September 2009 and Liberty Mutual had no problem at all with the dog being a "Pit Bull". They told me their policy is to view all dogs the same, irrespective of breed.
If anyone is having problems getting insurance (GEICO, for example, refused to give me Homeowners' Insurance because of the dog, despite me and my fiance both using them for years for auto policies!) - I recommend looking up your local office for Liberty Mutual and seeing what they have to say about it.

(disclaimer- I do not work for those guys, just am very happy with the fact that they are cool with the breed)

 

Re: The Crisis of Choosing Between Owning a Dog and Obtaining Home Owners Insurance (

Nice that they dont care that is pretty sweet.

 

Re: The Crisis of Choosing Between Owning a Dog and Obtaining Home Owners Insurance (

I have not had home owners insurance in well over 12-13 years because I have the greatest breed on this planet. Oh well if my house burns down! atleast I will have my Pit Bulls next to me.
Most likely I will be moving soon, my city (Ypsilanti, MI) just passed a BSL only opening the door for the next step=eradicate the APBT.
So on to the next city or state if I have to.
This is all getting out of hand and we cannot do a damn thing about it as it seems.....

 

Re: The Crisis of Choosing Between Owning a Dog and Obtaining Home Owners Insurance (

I own my own home and to hell with home owners insurance. Yeah i have it but i also have a apbt. I'm not going to live my life according to someone else. I'm going to live my life each day as if it were my last.

 

Re: The Crisis of Choosing Between Owning a Dog and Obtaining Home Owners Insurance (

I just got dropped from my home owners insurance because of me having an APBT. I was with them for three years and decided to inform them that I had a APBT. Bad idea I guess , but I have been calling around and Liberty mutual and FArmers insurance are in the process of giving me a quote. I have been told it will be double of what I was paying before for a year which comes to around a thousand plus with a rough estimate with the new house insurance. It is probably better that I told my old insurance this , so I will be covered under a good insurance company that understands the breed of dog I own. Even though I feel as responsible as any other responsible owner of our breed it does comfort me owning the proper insurance now. And it is true that they asked me if my dogs had good k-9 citizen certificates which would lower my rates a good bit. Too bad I don't but it is something to think about in the future. If you have extra income to spare I feel it is worth it because a burnt down house is no joke a fortune to replace and a dog bite with now insurance could possibly land you in jail depending on the severity. Again Farmers and Liberty do cover our breed. ( ;

 

Re: The Crisis of Choosing Between Owning a Dog and Obtaining Home Owners Insurance (

I tried to consolidate my cars/home insurance 5 years ago and my insurer (Amica, they are still refusing to make good on a crash my wife had a year ago) refused to insure APBT's.

I said I had a Presa De Canario hoping they were not on the list (I had a huge son of Champion Haunch, a lean 75 lb dog) but they were also on the list. I waited until he passed away and then was able to consolidate.

I then got the 2 dogs I currently own and want to change companies, but I know it will be very hard to get insurance.

 

Re: The Crisis of Choosing Between Owning a Dog and Obtaining Home Owners Insurance (

no way man. call up Liberty Mutual or Farmers and they will give you a quote. maybe it depends on were you live i dont know. i just moved out of the city and live off in the country now,so it wasnt a problem. be honest with them and tell them you have a APBT. a Presa is no better or lower on the list of dangerous breeds and it will only secure you liability regarding your house and liabilities.

 

Re: The Crisis of Choosing Between Owning a Dog and Obtaining Home Owners Insurance (

I think I will do that. I just wanted to wait until my accident settlement was done (I ended up getting burned for $6.5K by my insurance comp).