Home insurance companies often charge higher premiums to homeowners whose breeds of dog have a bad loss experience, and that practice is unfair and even “ridiculous,” thinks Connecticut lawmaker Brenda Kupchick (R-Fairfield). If “breed discrimination” is banned, and insurers instead pass the uncovered losses on to owners of other dog breeds or policyholders generally, that would not be unfair or ridiculous, right? [AP/Insurance Journal; David Moran, Hartford Courant (reg)]
6 Comments
Methinks the lawmaker doesn’t have a clue about dogs in general, much less specifically. Probably doesn’t realize the first law of th jungle: Size Matters.
If I am attacked by a rabid chihuahua I stomp it to death. If a rabid pit bull attacks me, it’s gonna get bloody. For both of us.
Think automobiles. a SMART car folds up like a crumpled candy bar wrapper if it hits a shadow. A Humvee driver goes, “what’s that noise”. Hey, they’re both cars, right?
Idiot legislaturalists.
Then let’s base any restrictions or additional charges on size. I can live with that. Whether it is based on weight or height it would be a fair ruling across the board.
What I can’t live with is having to guess at my dog’s breed. The shelter I adopted him from said he was a Lab Mix, my vet guesses him as some sort of Heinz 57 and my insurance company calls him a pit mix. He could be all or none of these. It’s all subjective since he didn’t come with an owners manual.
What is not subjective is that he is X inches high and weighs in at X pounds. No need for guessing or multiple opinions.
One only has to do a quick search of the internet to find out which breeds are the most dangerous, i.e., cause the most human death and it’s not chihuahuas. Although chihuahuas are crafty little devils known for using their leash for encircling the ankles of passersby thereby causing a rapid descent to earth. Pit Bulls win, with Rottweilers, German Shepherds and an assortment of other big breeds close behind. You have to wonder why this lawmaker couldn’t/wouldn’t have asked one of staffers to do such a search before filing the bill and quite probably bringing scorn and derision upon herself.
There is a photo out on the internet of a smart car that got caught between two trucks. It happened across the river from where I live. The smart car was not much more than a foot long afterwards and needless to say the driver of the smart car didn’t survive.
NOT close behind. The pits/pit mixes are vastly more dangerous than a rottweiler or a german shepherd.
Right — it would be perfectly fair. Spreading risk that way is what insurance is for.
Right — it would be perfectly fair. Spreading risk that way is what insurance is for.
So people who act responsibly should pay the costs of those who do not? If I haven’t don’t speed or haven’t caused a crash in my highly rated NHTSA and IIHA car should pay the same insurance as a person driving a rusted Pinto who has caused crashes?
How is that “fair?” Why should I be penalized with higher insurance rates in order to pay for the less than responsible individual’s actions and choices?