According to the Boston Globe, Massachussets dog owners are mad at insurance companies. Why? Because the insurance companies are cancelling policies based on dog breed. Here is the argument.
Insurance companies say that certain breeds are dangerous. Why are they dangerous? Because they bite people. These dog bites cost the insurance companies money. So, they refuse to insure people who own these types of dogs. At this level, it makes some sense.
Dog owners say that this is unfair because they are all being lumped together. A person who owns and shows Mastiffs is being lumped in with the guy who buys a Mastiff to prove he is masculine. The first person probably provides great training to their dog and the second person may not provide any training. (I know these are generalities.) This makes sense as well.
Here is the problem. The insurance companies cannot, or will not, evaluate each person individually. This would be very expensive and ruin the economies of scale that they use to keep premiums lower and profits high. So, they have to come up with some guidelines. At the same time, it is not fair to take the person who shows his/her dog and deny them coverage.
My proposed solution: people who own dogs who are on the list (By the way, there is no one “list” but rather a list from each insurance company. Some of the dogs on some of the lists are ridiculous, like Pomeranians.) become insurable if they can show proof of providing training for their dog. This allows the insurance company some level of assurance that the pet owner is responsible and it allows the responsible pet owner to get insurance.
For more on this, read Massachusetts attorney Christopher Earley’s blog about this same story.