RSS
Home
Refusals to grant homeowners insurance for dog owners may soon be a thing of the past
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
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.
Related Articles:
Comments
