Massachusetts State Law requires that “all dogs, six months of age or older, must be licensed annually”. Over recent years, an abundance of Massachusetts residents have rebutted law enforcing Animal Control Officers in response to licensing reminders, claiming that their insurance company is refusing to grant them homeowners insurance, because of the breed of dog that they are keeping.
Homeowners who are faced with threats of discriminatory insurance termination have been placed in a position somewhat understandably resolved by evading dog licensing laws. Lets face it, people are not going to easily give away their family pet, and to many of these people, a deficiency in homeowners insurance seems far greater a risk than that of being found for being the keeper of an unlicensed dog.
However, the reality is that knowingly omitting to be a “dog owner” in a homeowner’s insurance application could in itself result in coverage termination. Further, regardless of whether or not the insurance company has been the recipient of truthful disclosure of dog ownership, or whether or not a dog is properly vaccinated and licensed, any incident that occurs with respect to that dog, has potential for colossal repercussions.
The unintentional tussle between animal control laws and insurance companies has been an incessant reality. While Massachusetts’ cities and towns are desperately trying to ensure public safety by the enforcement of animal laws, insurance companies are desperately trying to protect their investments by precluding homeowners who are keeping “blacklisted” dogs.
Massachusetts’s legislation is presently working on a bill, which would make it illegal for insurance companies to refuse homeowners insurance to people who own a specific breed of dogs. This bill will protect responsible pet owners, and will still allow insurance companies the ability to protect themselves, by adjusting rates, or refusing coverage, to homeowner who’s dogs have been legitimately deemed “dangerous” based on tangible incidents, and not inequitable dangerous dog regulations.
Discrimination related to dog breeds is in itself an active legislative bill, due to ongoing controversy supporting that it’s “whose dogs” and not “which breeds” are perilous within our communities.
Further education to insurance companies will also include reintroducing dog ownership’s constructive rationale that a barking dog or a “beware of dog” sign unequivocally serves as equal definition as “deadbolts”, “burglar alarms”, and “manned security stations”, which are currently serving as “security benefit” line items in insurance applications.
Comments
Thank you for this! I have a cousin who has been going through this very same ordeal with a pit bull and a doberman.
Let me get this straight, they propose to legislate to force insurers to cover dog breeds with poor loss history, but health insurers can continue to discrimate against children with autism and other health issues.
I hope they pass this, it will set a precedent that I would love to stick them with on important insurance issues.
What will they call it, the "bite me once shame on you, bite me twice shame on me law"?
There is a reason why insurance companies list dangerous dogs-statistics and pay outs. It cost home owners' insurance nearly $300 million last year due to dog bites. Pitbulls are also the dog of choice for gangs and violent criminals-they use them to guard their crack houses with and 75% of the time the New York Police Department ever discharged a gun, was to shoot a pit bull in the process of attacking them. This happens to be a pure fact. So get over it. Pit bulls NEED to be banned and I'm sick of reading about dog fighting all the time. And children getting mauled or killed by these horrible creatures.
Luke Thomas u r sadly mistaken. The media loves to put pit bull attacks on the news - but rarely to they televise all of the other attacks by dogs - dogs that are not pit bulls. No one wants to hear that the next door golden retriever bit a child, but they all want to hear that yet another pit bull did. Yes, many gangs and violent criminals use pit bulls to guard thier crack houses, agreed. But...sending the message that only specific breeds of dogs can attack is actually endangering the lives of so many people who are led to believe that other dogs are always SAFE. The reality is ANY dog can be vicious, regardless of breed. Owners make dogs dangerous - dogs are not born inherently that way. You need to get over breed prejudice before you wind up in trouble when you think the cute yellow lab pouncing towards your child is something you dont have to worry about since its not a pit bull.
I'm a 17 year veteran Narcotics officer and a very happy owner of 3 Pitbulls. All 3 are wonderful family pets. I do run into Pitbulls during drug raids. On the hundreds of raids I've been on I have only ran into one vicious Pitbull. Usually after the initial shock of strangers entering their home the dog looks for affection from any who will give it. I always ablige. Any large strong dog can be trained to be vicious - first it was Dobies, then Rotti's and now pits that are demonized by the media and ignorance. Police the people not the loving animals.
When will this law finally be passed? It's past due time that we legislate against the individual dog and not specific breeds! I have personally owned 3 Doberman Pinshers, found them to be very loyal, intelligent, and complete mushies. My neighbor, however, has a Cocker Spaniel that I would not trust the safety of my enemies too -the little bugger will bite at anything! Common sense people...dogs are not born mean, people make them that way!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!