Deed vs. Breed: What Do You Think?
August 28th, 2009 by Penny Hagerman
If you own a home and at least one dog, you probably know your insurance company charges more to insure some dogs than others.
As Jeb so aptly points out in his own, humorous 
way, owners of larger dogs like pit bulls known for their aggression pay more to insure against bodily injury than those who own little dogs, like Pomeranians.
“But wait,” you say. “My pit bull is the sweetest, most loving dog ever! How come I have to pay more for insurance than my neighbor with the little pomeranian, when my pittie has never hurt anyone?”
In short, it’s because that sweet 80-pound pit bull’s breed has a not-so-nice reputation. That means he’s a higher risk than the little pomeranian. And insuring against risk means a higher likelihood of claims and higher home insurance rates.
If that 80-pound dog did decide to nip at that little kid he thought was threatening you in the park, he’d be likely to take the child’s face off without thinking twice; whereas that little pomeranian would be more likely to make a lot of noise or run away.
At least, that’s how the ‘Breeds’ side of the argument goes.
Some people think that notion is utterly ridiculous. “Judge a dog on his deeds, not his breed,” they say.
While that sounds good to the human ear, your insurer says it’s just not a reliable method for determining which dog will attack and injure, and which one won’t. Therefore, like it or not, owning that pit bull could end up costing you a lot more money than owning a smaller animal with a less violent history.
What do you think? Should homeowners be charged liability rates based on their dog’s breed or history? Let us know your thoughts—dog owner or not!
September 1st, 2009 at 10:14 am
I think if they can weasel their way into establishing a higher premium simply because I’m a man, then yes they mind as well be discriminating against the animals too..
September 2nd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I think you should be charged a higher premium for a higher risk dog, just as you would for elevated risk in any other situation. Without question, the more aggressive breeds are more likely to “nip” someone as opposed to the friendlier ones.
It’s not discriminating…it’s using statistics to assess future risk…that’s what insurance is, so why shouldn’t they do it? And how could you possible judge the animal by its deeds? It could be too late by the time it bites someone…
September 4th, 2009 at 9:11 am
You’re right, Rick. Waiting until a dangerous dog lashes out at someone could leave the person severely injured—and the owner having to put the dog down afterward anyway. I think we have to apply common sense here: not every high-risk animal will attack; but based on breed behavior and risk, as you brought up, we do have to be prepared just in case. Think of it this way: our homes or cars may never get broken into or stolen, but we’re required to insure them too, again, just in case. I don’t think we can look at this issue any other way.
September 4th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Thanks for commenting, Chris. I understand how you feel about being charged more for insurance than a woman who wanted the same coverage. But as Rick brought up, insurance is all about risk—and studies show that males tend to have more accidents and file more insurance claims than women involved in the same kinds of problems/accidents. The same can be said for dogs that make the “dangerous” list: because they’re statistically more likely to attack or bite someone, that kind of incident must be insured against, and at a higher rate than a less aggressive breed. If you think about it, the risk involved really does warrant higher rates, in my opinion.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:26 am
I certainly agree that there is a high risk involved when you have a more agressive breed. No matter how friendly they are, if they have jaws built for serious damage, you can’t help it. I wonder if certain cat breeds have a similar reputation as well. recently, one of my neighbours left their cat with me to look after, since they figured somehow that having quite a few of them already, i didn’t have my hands full. But the generally docile and reserved cat that was a persian by breed, went straight for my hand and bit me. Has anyone seen any discrimination, so to speak among cat breeds as well?
September 14th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
That’s an interesting point. I haven’t heard of insurers charging more for household cats that might tend to be more ferocious than their docile tabby counterparts. Personally, I figure that, since dogs tend to be more territorial than cats, defending their owners and property as threatening situations arise, insurers aren’t quite as concerned about them as they are about aggressive dogs. All the same, I hope you weren’t hurt too badly by that ferocious cat! I used to have a Siamese, and she tended to be that way with anyone outside our family.
If there are any agents or brokers out there who would like to clue us in on the cat issue, please share!
March 15th, 2010 at 11:23 am
I’m worried that the Pit bull desires a particular type of proprietor…these dogs, regardless of how ‘adoring’ still have teeth, are nevertheless creatures not having moral principles and if they DO bite, won’t let go. As in all animals…some often be much more suseptable to instinctual behavior and time and time again, this breed tends to complete just that.