dturm wrote:
Breed bans are brought about because it is statistically proven that the risk of loss from those breeds are higher than the risks from others to the point that they are uninsurable.
Then you have all the mix breed dogs that are mostly ignored by the insurance industry.
And you have all the individuals identified by their owners as XXX breed, not one of banned breeds. Is the insurance company or you as a business owner going to refuse service to those owners because you "know" this is one of the banned breeds?
There are so many better ways to deal with dog aggression and dog bite prevention than to institute breed bans.
If I was subjected to a breed ban by my insurance, I would err on the side of barring a dog that was not actually a banned breed but looked like it. My pockets are likely deeper than the guy with the dog, so any lawsuit is going to name me. I need insurance coverage, plain and simple. The insurance company isn't going to suddenly cover me if I say "hey, I thought the dog was a poodle, not a Rottweiler.". That's just business.
As for there are better ways than breed bans, I am all ears, and I would think the insurance industry would be the same. If they could write policies profitably, they would. If they refuse to write a policy, it's because they see it as unprofitable. They aren't making some social or political statement. But it is going to have to be a workable solution. You can't expect to have all 300,000,000 residents of the United States take courses on recognizing and dealing with dog behavior because there are 50,000 potentially dangerous Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Dobermans and Cane Corsos in the US.
