Dog Liability Bills Get Muzzled

By Caroline McDonald

NU Online News Service, May 10, 11:31 a.m. EDT?Legislative efforts to force carriers to provide coverage for dog breeds insurers view as vicious have been stalled or defeated in California and New York, an industry trade organization and legislative officials said. [@@]

AB 2399, introduced by Assemblywoman Carol Lui, D-La Ca?ada, was defeated in the Assembly Insurance Committee May 5. The bill would have prohibited insurers from refusing to issue or renew homeowner policies based upon the breed of dog residing in a dwelling.

Sam Sorich, president of the Association of California Insurance Companies, said the "oftentimes unprovoked and fierce nature of [dog] attacks further supports the insurance companies' right to incorporate such information into their risk assessment."

Canine rampages made national headlines in February 2001, when a San Francisco couple's dog mauled to death a neighbor in the hallway of their apartment building. The couple were sentenced to four years in prison.

Mr. Sorich pointed out that according to the Humane Society of the United States, about $1 billion is paid each year in insurance liability claims based on dog bites; and more than 4.7 million Americans suffer dog bites each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A statement with Assemblywoman Lui's bill said its purpose was to keep insurers from refusing coverage to owners of dogs "unless the individual dog has a history of viciousness."

The author noted that a dog's propensity to bite is also determined by its training, socialization, care, and whether it has been neutered or spayed. She suggested that insurers should consider dogs individually when considering coverage.

Currently, there are no restrictions or limitations on insurers' ability to underwrite homeowners' policies, according to the statement with the bill. Any surcharge added by insurers, however, such as for a specific breed of dog, must be approved by the California Department of Insurance.

Meanwhile a highly publicized New York bill, A 10169, which would have required owners of dogs of any breed to have liability insurance through their homeowners' or renters insurance, is being rewritten because of the large outcry from pet owners.

The new language would include "removing the liability insurance requirement, but still address concerns" on a local level by giving communities more authority to deal with dangerous dogs, said a spokesman for sponsor Assemblyman Peter M. Rivera, D-Bronx. The measure, which also had Earlene Hooper, D-Nassau County, as a primary sponsor, has eight multi-sponsors. It is currently in the Agricultural Committee.

The bill was named "Elijah's Law" after a three-year-old child whose face was severely scarred by a pit bull's attack. Guillermo Martinez, Mr. Rivera's legislative director, said that 200 dog bills were introduced in the New York legislature this year, but that this one "took off."

Another New York bill , A 6761, which is similar to the defeated California measure, was introduced by Assembly members Deborah Glick, D-Manhattan; Daniel J. O'Donnell, D-Manhattan; John W. Lavelle, D-Richmond County; and Steve Engelbright, D-Suffolk County. That bill would prohibit carriers from issuing or cancelling a policy or from charging higher premiums to homeowners' who have dogs judged to be of a vicious breed.

The bill is now in the Assembly Codes Committee for review. If there is a financial aspect to the bill it will continue to the Rules Committee, which would have to release it for a floor vote, an Assembly spokesman said. The bill also has an identical Senate companion, S 3888, he said.

Special Reports /

Dog Liability Bills Get Muzzled

Related Stories

Recommended For You