Requiring Insurance? Solving Problems!

Before I get started, brace yourself, it’s about to get controversial up in here!  Also, all of the dogs featured in this post are pit bull type dogs (and therefore potentially are risk of BSL) that are currently living in the shelter south of Tallahassee that I have frequently mentioned.  They are all in need of homes so if one catches your eye, you know the drill–let me know!

Shilah

Shilah…have you ever seen a sweeter face?!

While taking the crew on our evening walk last night Rich asked me if I had heard the news about BSL Tennessee.  “No?  What happened?”  Essentially, they have proposed a law which requires the owners of dogs deemed “aggressive” as well as all pit bulls to carry insurance on that dog.  My response was “Well, I think that is acceptable if the dog has done something bad enough to be deemed aggressive but it’s bullsh!t that all pits automatically require this.”  (Side note: I have a friend with a dog that is labeled “aggressive” because it was there when another dog killed a third dog.  It did not actually do anything but she was given the choice of labeling it, and therefore submitting to various requirements, or putting the dog down.  We could go into a lengthy discussion here, and obviously I am leaving a lot of details out, but I know that she appreciates the fact that she was given this option and thus given the choice to keep her dog alive and in her home.)  So we began discussing this whole insurance requirement and Rich said, “You know, if ALL dogs required insurance, we could solve a lot of problems.”  Uh, come again?

Rich said that he had been giving it a lot of thought all day and the more he talked, the more I realized, he’s brilliant!  Ok, I already knew that, but I did begin to see that he actually had a really good point.  Everything he was saying made sense and I think he really might be onto something.  So, I’m going to let Rich explain exactly why requiring insurance for all dogs might actually be a way to solve, or at least begin to seriously address, so many of the issues that we as dog lovers and advocates are working to correct.  Without further ado, I give you Rich and his analytical mind!

Tyson

Tyson – I LOVE this dog and would make her mine in a heartbeat if living conditions were more conducive.

Hello THPL followers! This is my first blog post (ever) so forgive me if it’s not up to the usual caliber that you’ve come to expect from this fine publication.

Most days I tend to go to Yahoo! and check to see what headlines have popped up in the past day. Today while I was there I saw something along the lines of “Tennessee Pit Bull Law” in the Trending Now box. Clicking on that I found myself reading an article about the proposed law, which Morgan explained above. (Note: this is not the original article I read on the bill, but it covers the same ground.) My initial reaction was not one of disgust at the singling out of Pit Bull type breeds in the new bill (which, by the way, was a recent addition to the bill and was not in the original draft of the bill), but rather I thought that this proposed law may actually accomplish some good. As the linked article points out, some people in Tennessee are against the bill because it amounts to discrimination based on the ability of the owner to afford an insurance premium. They also argue that the real problem with Pit Bulls that cause damage is the “thug” mentality of owners that raise (or rather manage) them to be vicious, and by requiring this insurance based on the dog breed and not the proclivity of the owner is treating the symptom instead of the cause. As it seemed to me that these arguments are not entirely consistent with each other, I thought that it may do some good in Tennessee.

Neddie

Neddie

I know that this thought runs contrary to everything that you’ve read thus far on this blog, and I decided that I owed it to my amazing fiancee and sweet Pit Bull, Maggie, to consider the bill from the perspective that BSL in all forms is wrong and tantamount to racial discrimination. So on further consideration I decided that this bill was wrong! However, I made this decision not because it goes too far in requiring the insurance for Pit Bulls, but rather because it does not go far enough: the law should apply to all dogs!

As Morgan has written about time and again, there are many problems that are out in the animal world, such as over-population, under-socialization, and mis-information. Requiring every dog owner to carry a policy on each of their dogs can help to mitigate each of these problems (and many more) by incentivizing dog owners to act responsibly. First I will propose a basic shell of the law as I see it, and then I will show how I think it can help address these problems.

Troy

Troy

It is a basic system that requires every dog owner to carry general liability insurance on the possibility that his or her dog will cause either personal or property damage. This is basically the same as requiring every car owner to carry property and personal injury protection in order to get a license plate for the car. As part of getting the insurance coverage, each dog will be required to be microchipped with the owner/policy owner’s information. The microchip’s serial number will be placed in a national database that will serve as proof of the insurance and expiration dates, even if the owner does not carry an insurance card on them. The $25,000 of coverage that is required by the Tennessee bill may be a little excessive though (the state of Florida only requires $10,000 of PIP coverage on your car!), but the coverage should be a sizable amount.

Okay, now for what I think the benefits of this system will be. First it incentivizes responsible owner behavior. As the insurance premiums will be decided by the insurance market, the insurers can offer discounts based on what they think will reduce the possibility of having a claim filed based on each individual dog, think of these as “safe driver” discounts offered by car insurers currently. This can include things such as a small discount for having a dog complete a certified obedience course or for being spayed/neutered, a larger discount for completing a canine good citizen course or being certified as a therapy dog, and even a discount for the owner completing a course in being a good owner. Breeds of dogs may also be taken into account by the premiums set by the insurance company, but insurers are very good at using actuarially sound principles to set their premiums. Thus the insurers would actually use hard data and statistics on which breeds are more likely to be aggressive rather than emotional reactions based on perception. Then we may see Pit Bull owners get a break compared to Collie owners.

Sally

Silly Sally!

Also by requiring coverage for each dog owned, this can help the over-population problem by causing people to think twice about taking a dog that they cannot afford to insure. If people know that there will be a guaranteed cost with each added dog, they may also think about the other costs that can creep up with owning one or more dogs. I shudder to think about what would’ve happened if Morgan and I did not have the money to cover the vet bills after our two girls got into it last month. For many owners the an unexpected cost can mean that they will have to beg a rescue to take their dog, will abandon the dog at a shelter, or will opt for the dog to be put down by the vet in lieu of having to pay thousands of dollars in vet bills. This insurance requirement can at least get them to consider the potential of unexpected costs before choosing to get a dog. Additionally the requirement to insure each dog can dissuade owners from becoming animal hoarders and acquiring an unhealthy amount of dogs. This is not too mention the money that can due to someone for their health bills if a dog did snap and bite a stranger.  I know Florida, for one, has a strict liability law when it comes to dog bites/attacks. An owner need not know that a dog is “aggressive” or “dangerous” in order to be held accountable financially when an injury occurs. So this really is a cost that can come out of the blue!

Champagne

Champagne

Although I see many more potential benefits of requiring insurance and establishing a national database where vet records and insurance coverage status will be linked, I feel like this post has gone on long enough, so I will finish with one final point: addressing the owner problem. By requiring insurance for dogs the owners that cannot afford the insurance will be priced out of owning a dog. As there may be a link between the “thug mentality” and lower income (not claiming that there is, just that it has been suggested before), requiring dog owners to pay premiums to keep the dog, we may eliminate some of the less desirable owners from the potential owner pool. I know, some of you are probably wondering about the potential owners that do not have a lot of money in their checking account, but have a lot of love to give a dog and would treat it like part of the family. However, I think that this will encourage people to foster dogs! Like companies that are in the business of using a lot of cars (trucking companies, car rental companies) can acquire fleet coverage from car insurers, rescues could perceivably get “fleet” coverage for their dogs, where they would pay less in premiums per dog than if they were owned by separate individuals. And, as part of getting this fleet discount, rescues would be required to check into the suitability of potential fosters and vouch for them.

Phew, sorry for the long post. As I said I have many other potential benefits under this system, and I may put them in the comments, or in a follow-up post so stay tuned! Thank you for sticking with me and indulging me on my first post.

Group

Seriously, look at this group of beautiful, awesome dogs!

See?  Told you he’s analytical!  I suppose getting a law degree will do that to a guy though.  I do believe that there will be a follow up post to this one because Rich really did only touch on a few of the issues that we talked about on our walk.  He’s actually very excited by this topic and has been talking about taking it further and attempting to get a paper on this topic published, which would be super duper awesome because if that happened, it would reach so many people.

So I’m curious, what are your initial reactions to this idea?

14 thoughts on “Requiring Insurance? Solving Problems!

  1. I’m definitely in favor of anything that would encourage more responsible dog ownership, although like you touched on, I would be concerned about how this type of legislation would affect loving, responsible dog owners (or future owners) who simply don’t have a lot of money.

    Interestingly, our homeowners’ insurance has never asked about whether or not we have a dog, let alone what kind/breed we have. Our pup is a beagle mix (mixed with something shorter and longer– probably dachshund), so they probably wouldn’t have had an issue with her anyway, but I think it’s interesting that they never asked. We also do some fostering and they never asked about that either. Of course, we are lucky enough not to have BSL in our county, so maybe that’s why.

    • I would check to make sure that your homeowner’s insurance provides coverage for liability caused by a dog. Some policies have a specific disclaimer for damage caused by your dog. Unfortunately this is a decision that is left completely up to the insurers and BSL doesn’t play a part.

  2. In Atlanta we had to pay annually fees for the dogs we had. If the dog was neutered the fee was discounted. I really thought it was a good idea. We had to send in proof of vaccs as well.

  3. Wow. Initially I was like ‘uh, I dunno…’ but you made alot of good points.

    To play devil’s advocate…My main concern is like all the controls that get put on things — are the “less desireable” owners that cannot afford the insurance also the type of people that don’t really follow rules? and would own a dog ‘illegaly’?

    Also, does this undermind the focus of some to get the dog to be looked at as more than property. By having insurance on them like you would a piece of property or car? Does this harm attempts to getting animal cruelty to a higher punishment?

    *My explorer was messing up and I couldn’t really see what I was typing, so sorry if there are typos*

      • I definitely agree with you on the “property” aspect…it’s a concerning point for sure, but I am inclined to think that IF this ever actually went anywhere, it would hopefully be done so in a way that would encourage responsible ownership, which tends to lead to deeper bonding between dog and owner. And I definitely agree about the “less desirable” owners not being rule followers, and certainly there would be a lot of people that didn’t abide by the rules, which is to be expected, but if and when these people got caught, there would be punishments in places (fines, etc) that hopefully would begin to discourage these people. I know there is no perfect answer, but I don’t think it hurts to at least discuss ideas like this and others!

  4. Hey just wanted to say I love your blog. I agree with soooo much that you have to say. I work with a local rescue in Ottawa, Ontario. Unfortunatly here we have a BSL in place. Our rescue saves pitbull and pitmixes from shelters and relocates them outside of Ontario. Your blog is awsome and I totally respect the way you handle your dogs. We have two of our own (1 pit mix and 1 shorkie) and 1 foster pit right now. We are hopefully going to be fostering a second little bully pup starting this weekend.

  5. My homeowner’s insurance does not cover dog liability because I had a “chow.” When I spoke with them a few years ago, the list of breeds not covered is quite extensive. You would think coverage would be offered at additional costs for those of us with dogs on their “list” but that was not an option. Then when I called after my sweet chow passed away, I was told they no longer provide coverage for any dogs.

  6. Wow! Very interesting points!! My husband and I need to pay an additional fee along with our rent every month as “pet insurance”, so I see your ideas as just a more in-depth version of what we pay for monthly to keep Taylor in our apartment complex.

  7. Pingback: Unexcused Absence | Temporary Home, Permanent Love

  8. Pingback: Requiring Insurance? Solving Problems! Part II | Temporary Home, Permanent Love

Comments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s