It’s getting to the point that just having a dog in the family makes a home uninsurable in some places. In my lifetime I’ve seen a number of breeds black-listed but sooner or later its just the fact there’s a dog in the house isn’t it? Here’s a story from WINK News TV that really points up the ludicrous nature of this whole problem.
By Holly Wagner
When Lee and Debbie Dobyns moved to Florida a couple months ago, they expected insurance headaches from their home, not from their dog.
“It was disturbing, shock at first – we couldn’t believe it was happening,” says the Dobyn’s.
Their 11 year-old dog Rocky is uninsurable. The Dobyn’s insurance company says because Rocky is part German Shepard it can’t cover the dog or the property.
“We couldn’t sleep that first night,” says Debbie.
“One of the options was to put the for sale sign up and tell them not to unload the moving van, cause what can you do.”
Insurance experts say there is not much they can do because to insurance companies, dogs are a huge liability.
AAA Insurance Manager Rick Sexton says, “The biggest concern is the dog will bite somebody.”
Insurers pay nearly $350 million a year for dog bite claims.
Sexton says many companies refuse to insure a number of breeds.
“Pit bulls, Akitas, Rottweilers, Dobermans, and Great Danes.”
Shame on these insurance companies!!!
It really ticks me off when insurance companies pull this kind of malarky! On one hand, security experts say the best way to avoid break-ins and the subsequent danger is by having a dog in the home. Then, when there are dogs present the insurance companies want to cover their you-know-whats by saying, “OH NO! No dogs!” You can’t have it both ways.
I know some non-dog people might say, “Why not have a small dog or just avoid one of the banned breeds?” Now nothing against small dogs, they’re great too and very loving, but if you want a dog for home protection you’re probably leaning towards dogs that CAN actually do some damage if you and your family ARE threatened, right? That means, a larger dog.
Besides, the breeds that get targeted by insurance companies are some of the same breeds who have served and still serve humans so well. The first and most decorated for honor dog in American military history was a pit bull. German shepherds lead the pack in all aspects of police work. Doberman Pinschers are some of the most dedicated protection dogs. The list could go on and on but the point is humans have a very odd attitude towards dogs in general.
On one hand, we want dogs to protect us in ways we can’t protect ourselves (sniffing out bombs or drugs for example) and yet we begrudge them the fact that they ARE dogs and when they misbehave it is almost always the fault of a human. They become the scapegoats for the stupidity or the evil actions of the humans they trust!
Like the dog who bit the criminal who owned him a few days ago. The man was running away from the police and his dog bit his nose, causing him to finally give up. The dog was taken to a local shelter. Now you and I know that the dog will probably never walk out those doors again. His reward for stopping the criminal will be to pay with his own life unless some good soul intervenes. If that had been a human, he probably would have gotten a reward and a pat on the back.
So when insurance companies start saying they can’t insure homes of dog owners, I want to know would those same insurance agents and executives like to get rid of police dogs and search dogs and service dogs, many of which are members of banned breeds? That’s a poor economy and sad repayment for all those breeds have done for humans!
Our Most-Commented Stories