Panel mulls dangerous dog issues Breed-related insurance coverage scrutinized

AUGUSTA – As a high-profile murder case in which a dog did the killing and its owner was charged with the crime goes to trial in California, Maine legislators are grappling with how to make the state’s dangerous dog law clearer.

At the same time, Sen. John Nutting, D-Leeds, wants to make sure that no insurance company can discriminate against a homeowner based on the person’s breed of dog.

Nutting said Tuesday that many homeowners may not even be aware that their insurance policy could contain a provision that denies coverage to anyone owning a dog or a specific breed. “This concerns me greatly,” he said.

The average dog case settlement, said Nutting, is $50,000 to $60,000. “If someone has a home and thinks they are covered and they are not, a $50,000 bill is quite a shock,” he said.

Nutting said he will attempt to pass a bill out of the Agriculture Committee that would prohibit discrimination by insurance companies against dog owners.

Agriculture Committee leaders have requested more information on the issue before taking any action.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are approximately 4.7 million dog bites reported in the United States each year. These bites cost more than $1 billion, with the property-casualty insurance industry paying roughly $310 million in 1999, about 20 percent of total homeowners’ insurance liability payouts.

Based on liability claims, insurance companies have identified nine breeds of dog that may affect homeowners’ ability to get or renew their insurance. Insurance companies also may charge more insurance fees for certain breeds of dogs.

The following purebreds have been responsible for the greatest number of dog bite-related fatalities over the 20-year period from 1979 to 1998, according to the CDC. The breeds are listed in declining order of fatalities: pit bull, Rottweiler, German shepherd, husky, malamute, Doberman pinscher, chow chow, Great Dane and Saint Bernard.

Individual insurance carriers have their own lists, which differ widely and can include many other dogs such as cocker spaniels and Dalmatians.

Alejandra Soto of the New York-based Insurance Information Institute said Tuesday that most insurance companies’ dangerous dog lists are based on past claims experience. They also usually have a “one bite rule,” which is based on the premise that “it is very unusual that more than one bite by the same dog is someone else’s fault,” she said

Soto stressed that no decisions by insurance carriers are made based on individual breed characteristics but completely on previous claims. “After all, we are not dog experts, we’re insurance experts,” she said.

Soto said there is wide disparity among dog liability coverage requirements by individual insurance companies, and should any anti-discrimination legislation be passed in Maine, she doubted it would affect the ability of Maine homeowners to obtain coverage.

“Some companies could refuse to serve Maine homeowners,” said Soto, “but that would be a very extreme reaction.” She said other insurance responses could be an overall rate increase or blanket exclusions of dogs in insurance policies.

Stephanie Pier, canine legislation coordinator for the American Kennel Club, said many homeowners with dogs currently are experiencing insurance problems. “While the agencies are within their rights to deny coverage or charge higher premiums to whomever they choose, the AKC’s Canine Legislation Department shares the concern of responsible dog owners who are being treated unfairly,” said Pier.

“First-time applicants may discover that an insurance company will ask what breed they own and immediately reject their application. Long-term policyholders may also be refused renewal when the agent discovers the insured owns a dog. The homeowner may not have told the insurance company about owning dogs when seeking initial coverage or the company may have changed its policy towards dogs,” said Pier.

Pier said, “The AKC believes that insurance companies should determine coverage of a dog-owning household based on the dog’s deeds, not the breed. If a dog is well behaved, there is no reason to deny or cancel coverage or to charge higher premiums. In fact, dogs should be considered an asset, a natural alarm system whose bark may deter intruders and prevent potential theft.”

That position is, in fact, what State Farm Insurance has adopted, according to spokesman Kip Diggs. “We at State Farm don’t concern ourselves with the breed of dog,” Diggs said, “but rather the behavior of the individual dog. It is more a degree of responsible dog ownership.”

Connecticut, Washington and New York are mulling laws that prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against dog owners, while Pennsylvania already has an anti-discrimination law on the books.

Nutting said he would pattern Maine’s law after one of these existing statutes. “This is an issue of awareness for the homeowner,” he said.

Meanwhile, members of the Agriculture Committee reviewed LD 2072, which would allow municipalities to adopt their own dangerous dog laws, even regulations more stringent than current state statutes. Under current law, a dog can be considered dangerous after one bite, as long as the individual bitten was not trespassing on the dog owner’s premises. State police dogs are exempt from this law.

Rep. Eleanor M. Murphy, R-Berwick, said she brought the issue before the committee in the wake of a pit bull attack on an 82-year-old woman in Berwick last fall. The woman had stopped and knocked on the door of a home after she spotted two puppies in the roadway and was concerned for their well-being, said Murphy. No one answered the door, and while en route back to her vehicle the woman felt two paws on her shoulders. When she turned to look back, the pit bull bit her in the face. Murphy said the woman’s injuries were extensive and she had to undergo plastic surgery.

“We all like dogs,” said Murphy. “But I don’t have the right to have a dog that will chew you up if you knock on my door.”

She said that when the Berwick case was brought before the district attorney for prosecution, it was discovered that the definition of “dangerous” was ambiguous.