Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dangerous Dog Insurance

Comment: Main reason for declining: The submission seems promotional in nature. Material which is needlessly promotional has no place in Wikipedia. Secondary reason for declining: The general topic of canine liability insurance is touched in Breed-specific legislation. There may be a few encyclopedic items in this submission which are not in Breed-specific legislation. You can add them. Do not add promotional content. Adding links to organizations providing or promoting insurance will almost always be viewed as "promotional edits" so avoid doing it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The AFC submission and AFC comment sections removed on May 13 have been restored. Please do not remove them. They will be removed when and if the article is created. It is not unusual for an article to be submitted, reviewed, and declined multiple times, and it is important to keep the history of the deletion-reasons and other comments intact. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Although, given the reasons for my recommendation to merge this with an existing article, it is very unlikely that this topic will get its own article any time soon. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Dangerous Dog Insurance® is a trademark registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. An insurance agent or insurance company that offers Dangerous Dog Insurance® is offering a personal liability policy that is either a homeowner insurance policy, a renter insurance policy, or a personal liability insurance policy that does not have an exclusion for coverage of a liability claim arising from the ownership or care of a dog.

The Insurance Information Institute ("III") is a nonprofit, communications organization supported by the insurance industry. The III indicates that most insurance companies will insure homeowners and renters with dogs and that these homeowner and renter insurance policies automatically include such liability coverage.

The III also reports that included in these homeowners and renters insurance policies is the type of medical coverage that enables an injured person, regardless of whether or not the injury is related to the ownership or care of a dog, to submit their medical bills directly to the homeowner’s or renter's insurance company. The amount of insurance coverage afforded is typically $1,000 to $5,000 and is in addition to any liability insurance coverage afforded by the homeowner or renter insurance policy. This type of medical coverage is typically referred to as "medical payments" or "medical expense" coverage.

File:Trademark

Dangerous Dog Insurance Trademark

Definition of Dangerous Dog Insurance®

The Rough Notes Company, Inc. has been an educational resource for the insurance industry since 1878. It's Internet presence is found at www.RoughNotes.com and www.InsuranceMarketPlace.com. Its website located at www.InsuranceMarketPlace.com offers definitions of various insurance terms. It provides no definition for "animal liability insurance" or "dog liability insurance". It does, however provide a definition of "dangerous dog liability insurance".

This definition relies primarily on "standard homeowners" policies for insurance coverage for a dog and relies upon alternatives for "liability insurance coverage for these breeds [of dogs]..." when "standard homeowners" excludes or restricts coverage. This definition also states that "many standard homeowners" policies exclude or restrict liability coverage for dogs. It does not claim that all standard homeowner policies have such exclusions or restrictions. It also states that such insurance coverage is a "personal lines coverage" as opposed to being a type of business or professional insurance.

Misnomer And Misuse

This article is not to be confused with the Breed-Specific Legislation article which is focused only on the laws related to the ownership of dogs. But there is not a single state, county, or city law or ordinance in the United States that directs a dog owner to purchase Dangerous Dog Insurance®. All such laws and ordinances only require the dog owner to purchase "liability insurance" except for one ordinance of the City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota which as an ordinance section 90.003(c)(7) that states: "The owner [of a dog deemed vicious] shall carry $100,000 animal liability insurance...". The fact is that the South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation, Insurance Division has no "animal liability insurance" policy forms filed for use in the state. Therefore, "animal liability insurance" policy forms do not exist for use in South Dakota and a dog owner cannot comply with this ordinance unless there is an assumption that the meaning of this ordinance is that "animal liability insurance" means "personal liability insurance that does not exclude liability coverage for a dog".

Blacklisting Breeds of Dogs

Sometimes the term "blacklisting" is used to describe the insurance industry's response to liability insurance coverage for dogs that are of a specific breed. The Hartford Currant reported that "[i]nsurance industry officials say the practice of creating dog-breed blacklists is widespread among insurance companies." A "blacklisted" dog breed typically causes a misconception that a certain breed of dog is automatically excluded from the liability coverage afforded by a homeowner or renter insurance policy. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners reports that "some insurers" won't provide insurance to people who own "certain breeds of dogs". There is no consistency in the insurance industry, from one insurance company to the next, regarding which breeds of dogs are "blacklisted".

There is no standardized list of "blacklisted" breeds that can be relied upon. Property Casualty 360° Magazine is an insurance industry publication for insurance professionals, and it has listed seven of the top dangerous breeds of dogs. But each insurance company makes its own rules regarding restrictions on liability coverage included in a homeowner or renter insurance policy for dogs. Each state in the United States of America has its own insurance regulations on whether or not an insurance company can restrict its liability coverage provided to dog owners.

State Insurance Regulations (in the United States only)

Each state is responsible for establishing its own insurance regulations. Typically if a state law prohibits discrimination based on dog breed alone, the insurance laws are consistent with the state laws. In other words, homeowner or renter insurance companies cannot decline an applicant or exclude liability coverage for a dog owner based on the dogs' breed alone.

In addition, if a state has no laws that prohibit breed-specific regulation of dogs, this does not mean that there is Breed-Specific Legislation in that state. It could mean that dogs are not highly-regulated in the state and that the state lawmakers are not concerned about passing laws that either prohibit or promote the regulation of dogs based on a dog's breed. For example, Connecticut, Louisiana (home of Pit Bulls and Parolees), Montana, New Hampshire, and Vermont are just a few states that are currently silent on this issue.

Also, if a state insurance regulation prohibits breed-specific discrimination by the insurance companies, a dog owner whose dog is of one of the commonly blacklisted breeds might be cancelled or declined for insurance for some other reason such as "insufficient credit score". Most states have laws that allow an insurance company to cancel or non-renew a homeowner or renter insurance policy if there is a change in the risk. See Indiana Codes 27-7-12-6 and 27-7-12-7 as a common example of such a law. In other words, an owner of a specific breed of dog could be cancelled because he has a trampoline in his yard. The breed of the dog is not the sole factor in considering whether or not an insurance application is approved or an insurance policy is cancelled, and all dog owners should take action to improve their insurability. A Consumer's Guide To Home Insurance published by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners is one source to help homeowners and renters assess and improve their insurability. Another resource to help homeowners and renters to lower their insurance costs by improving their insurability is a booklet titled 12 Ways To Lower Your Homeowners Insurance Costs published by the Insurance Information Institute which is available on the Internet.

California

California Food & Agric. Code § 31683 and Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122331 bans breed-specific regulation of dogs:

"Any city or county may adopt a program for controlling dangerous or vicious dogs, but it cannot be specific as to breed. However, breed specific ordinances are allowed for spay/neuter programs and breeding restrictions."

Colorado

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-204.5 bans breed-specific regulation of dogs:

"A municipality may adopt a rule or law for the control of dangerous dogs, but it cannot regulate dangerous dogs in a manner that is breed specific."

Connecticut

Connecticut sHB 6543, File 253, (2005 Session) prohibits homeowner and renter insurance companies from considering a dog's breed when setting policy rates or minimum premiums.

It also prohibits such insurers from using the dog's breed as the reason for canceling, not renewing, or not issuing a policy.

This bill has not been passed by the Connecticut General Assembly.

However, Connecticut laws are void of Breed-Specific Legislation.

Florida

As of May 2013, Florida has insurance regulations that specifically allow a homeowner or renter insurance policy to exclude all dogs and/or all animals from the liability coverage that is included with "standard homeowner" and "standard renter" insurance policies.

Florida Statute § 767.14 bans breed-specific regulation of dogs unless the regulation was established prior to October 1, 1990::

"Local government may place restrictions or requirements on owners of dangerous dogs, but no regulation can be specific to breed. Any ordinance adopted before October 1, 1990 is grandfathered."

Indiana

Indiana Code does not explicitly allow for the cancellation of a residential policy based on the breed of a dog and it does not explicitly prohibit it. See Indiana Codes 27-7-12-6 and 27-7-12-7

Illinois

510 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/15(a) and 5/24 bans regulation of dogs based on breed alone:

"Vicious dogs cannot be classified in a manner that is breed specific. Local government is prohibited from adopting animal control ordinances or regulations that are breed specific."

Maine

Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 7, § 3950 bans regulation of dogs based on breed alone:

"Municipalities are prohibited from adopting breed specific ordinances, laws, or regulations."

Maryland

Maryland does not allow insurance companies to discriminate on breed alone.

The Maryland Insurance Department has fought in the past to protect dog owners who have been denied homeowner or renter insurance based only on the fact that they owned a specific breed of dog.

Massachusetts

Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 140 § 157 bans regulation of dogs based on breed alone:

"No dog shall be deemed dangerous based on its breed. No city or town shall regulate dogs in a manner that is breed specific."

Minnesota

Minn. Stat. Ann. §347.51 bans regulation of dogs based on breed alone:

"A statutory or home rule charter city or a county is prohibited from adopting an ordinance regulating dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs based solely on the specific breed."

New Jersey

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 4:19-36 bans regulation of dogs based on breed alone:

"State law supersedes any law, ordinance, or regulation enacted by any municipality or county concerning vicious or potentially dangerous dogs, including any specific breed."

New York

New York has a state law, Section 107 (5) of the Agriculture and Markets Law, which was added by the laws of 1997, Chapter 530 (S. 4749-B, Skelos and A. 3028-C, Connelly) which prohibits Breed-Specific Legislation.

Section 107 (5), which is contained in Article 7 of the Agriculture and Markets Law:

"Nothing contained in this article shall prevent a municipality from adopting its own program for the control of dangerous dogs; provided, however, that no such program shall be less stringent than this article, and no such program shall regulate such dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision one of this section, this subdivision and section one hundred twenty-one of this article shall apply to all municipalities including cities of two million or more."

In fact, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, recently entered a court order that held that a dog cannot be deemed dangerous only because it fought with another dog after it had been provoked.

New York does not have insurance regulations that allow for automatic exclusion of a dog from homeowner or renter liability coverage based on breed alone.

Ohio

As of May 2013, Ohio has insurance regulations that specifically allow a homeowner or renter insurance policy to exclude a dog from the liability coverage based on breed alone. In fact, the Ohio FAIR plan, the insurance resource of last-resort for Ohio homeowners who have been declined repeatedly by "standard homeowner" insurance companies, will decline an applicant for insurance if he owns a Pit Bull.

The Ohio FAIR plan states that in order to be eligible for insurance coverage:

"Property must be free from the presence of any aggressive or vicious animal(s) including but not limited to pit bulls and pit bull mixes."

Oklahoma

Okla. Stat. tit. 4, § 46 bans regulation of dogs based on breed alone:

"Local, municipal, or county government can regulate potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs, but the regulations cannot be breed specific."

Pennsylvania

3 Pa. Stat. § 459-507-A bans the regulation of dogs based on breed alone:

"Local ordinances dealing with dogs cannot prohibit or limit a specific breed."

3 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 459-507-A(d) requires that a liability insurance policy issued to the owner of a dog deemed dangerous cannot prohibit coverage based on breed alone:

"(d) Insurance coverage discrimination.--No liability policy or surety bond issued pursuant to this act or any other act may prohibit coverage from any specific breed of dog."

Texas

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 822.047 bans the regulation of dogs based on bred alone:

"A county or municipality may place additional requirements or restrictions on dangerous dogs if the requirements are not breed specific."

Virginia

Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540 bans the regulation of dogs based on breed alone:

"Prohibits finding a dog dangerous or vicious solely based on breed. Local governing bodies cannot prohibit the ownership of a particular dog breed."

Virginia allows for an insurance policy exclusion for liability arising from the ownership or care of a dog only if the dog has had a prior history of aggression. The Virginia Property Insurance Association, the insurance option of last resort for homeowners who have been declined repeatedly by "standard homeowner" insurance companies, will not decline a dog owner for insurance but will exclude liability coverage for the owner of a dog that has had a history of aggression, regardless of the dog's breed.

Other States

Insurance regulations for other states may be added in the future to this article.

Punitive Damages Not Typically Covered By Insurance

Most homeowner and renter insurance policies do not include coverage for punitive damages. The best first option for the dog owner is to prevent insurance claims and to make sure that he always has his dog under control. It is advised that dog owners use of a muzzle, a leash, and a kennel to confine the dog.

The Americans With Disabilities Act

The Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") is 42 U.S.C.§ 12101 and 47 U.S.C § 611. The ADA prohibits restrictions imposed upon the owners of service dogs. For example, if a dog is a service dog under the ADA, a landlord cannot require the dog owner to obtain Dangerous Dog Insurance®.

United States Law and State Laws That Protect A Dog Owner's Privacy

The United States federal law established in 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801-6809 sets forth the right of a consumer to privacy. This is important to the issue of Dangerous Dog Insurance® because many dog owners are required to show proof of insurance to their landlords, animal control police, dog wardens, and/or humane society. 12 U.S.C. § 1843 (k)(4)(B) sets forth that an insurance transaction is subject to privacy protection under 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801-6809.

Most state privacy laws impose more protection than the federal privacy law.

Best Way To Prevent Insurance Claims

The University of Minnesota conducted a study in 2006 which established that there are several factors that contribute to dog bites. The first of which is "uncoordinated prevention efforts". The second contributing factor is "narrowly focused breed specific laws".

In other words, an insurance policy is not the best defense to a claim arising from the ownership or care of a dog. The best defense is to prevent a claim. Use a muzzle, a four-foot leash, confine your dog to a kennel, and never leave your dog unattended, especially when the dog is outside.

The Insurance Information Institute ("III") advises that the best way a dog owner can protect himself and his dog is to prevent an injury from happening.

The III claims that the dogs that are at greatest risk of biting are those that "fall victim to human shortcomings such as poor training, irresponsible ownership and breeding practices that foster viciousness".

Comparing Fatality Statistics For Dog Injuries With Crib Injuries

While any injury is tragic and avoidable in many cases, some insurance professionals support adopting a healthy perspective of the issue of dog-related incidents. The Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, conducted a study that analyzed national data collected from 1990 to 2008 regarding children whose injuries were treated in emergency rooms. This data was obtained from the United States federal Consumer Product Safety Commission. The study focused on nonfatal injuries related to cribs, playpens and bassinets. The data established that 181,654 infants were injured and that most of the children were not hospitalized. The data also established that there were 2,140 deaths, not including deaths of those children who did not receive treatment in an emergency room. The dog bite data collected by the United States Centers for Disease Control shows that from 1979 to 1998 there were approximately 16 fatalities from dog bite injuries. When these statistics are compared to the 2,140+ crib deaths, this could explain part of the reason why some groups like the American Kennel Club® believe that the focus on regulating certain dog breeds is excessive and why there has been a significant uprising in non-profit groups that fight to save Pit Bulls and other large breeds of dogs. At the same time, while statistical data on dog liability insurance claims is readily available from the Insurance Information Institute, there seems to be no statistical data on crib death and crib injury liability insurance claims.

In addition, despite the high rate of crib deaths, including 150 suffocation and strangulation deaths between 2007 and 2010, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission did not ban the type of cribs that caused most of these deaths, drop-side cribs, until June 2011. For the first time in nearly 30 years and after thousands of infants died from crib-related injuries, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission voted unanimously in July 2010 to impose minimum safety standards upon crib manufacturers. Some opponents to Breed-Specific Legislation allege that the various state, county, and city governments' focus on the regulation of dogs has been tied primarily to concerns of being sued for injuries arising from dogs residing within their jurisdictions. Meanwhile, no focus has been given locally to infant injuries and deaths related to defective cribs because the local governments cannot be sued for such injuries. Some allege that the governments' motivation for such regulation of dogs is not out of concern for public safety as much as it is a concern for minimizing potential claims against the government.

Court Cases in the United States

Supreme Court of the United States, Records 12-6275 and 12A444

A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS") on September 10, 2012, record 12-6275. An Application for a Stay, record 12A444, was filed with the SCOTUS on October 26, 2012. The parties in the Petition and the Application are Chase Carmen Hunter and Lester Kalmanson Agency, Inc. Chase Carmen Hunter is shown by the United States Patent and Trademark Office as the owner of the Dangerous Dog Insurance® trademark. Lester Kalmanson Agency, Inc. is the respondent and it filed a "waiver of right of respondent Lester Kalmanson Agency, Inc. to respond" to SCOTUS record 12-6275 on October 11, 2012. According to SCOTUS rule 15.2, the respondent therefore, conceded the allegations in the petition and the application as true. The petition 12-6275 was denied on November 13, 2012.

The Petition and Application alleged, among other things, that Lester Kalmanson Agency, Inc., is a competitor of Chase Carmen Hunter in the business of offering insurance to people who own dogs and that Lester Kalmanson Agency, Inc. was transacting insurance in many states in the United States without first obtaining the proper license to do so. It also alleged that the Orange County Florida Circuit Court, in case 2009-CA-037513, had proceeded in the case against Chase Carmen Hunter despite the fact that there was no proof in its record that Hunter had been served with the lawsuit. The petition and application also alleged that the Orange County Florida Circuit Court appears to have been the source of a document that states that a hearing was held on April 12, 2011, and that a judgment of nearly $10,000,000 was entered against the defendants of which Hunter was one. The petition and the application alleged that the records of the clerk of the Orange County Florida Circuit Court show that no hearings were scheduled or held in case 2009-CA-037513 on April 12, 2011, that there are no court minutes of a hearing held in March or April 2011 and no record of a court order being entered in March or April 2011.

The Orange County Florida Circuit Court case 2009-CA-037513 contains a document dated March 14, 2011, that states that a hearing was held. But the the records of the clerk of the Orange County Florida Circuit Court show that no hearings were scheduled or held in case 2009-CA-037513 on March 14, 2011, that there are no court minutes of a hearing held in March 2011, and no record of a court order being entered in March 2011. But this document dated March 14, 2011, states that it enjoins the defendants from using the word "Kalmanson". Specifically, there exists or existed truthful information available to the public that compared the cost difference between insurance offerings of "Kalmanson" and other lower cost providers.

The Petition and Application also alleged that Orange County Florida Circuit Court case 2009-CA-037513 was an insurance fraud scheme by which the president of Lester Kalmanson Agency, Inc. had attempted to personally collect, on his own behalf, the nearly $10,000,000 "judgment" by using an unlicensed Florida insurance adjusting company that was owned by the president of Lester Kalmanson Agency, Inc. to demand that various parties, including parties who were not defendants in Orange County Florida Circuit Court case 2009-CA-037513, provide their insurance policy information so that the "judgment" of nearly $10,000,000 could be collected from these insurance policies.

Supreme Court of the United States, Record 12-9428

A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS") on March 19, 2013, record 12-9428. The parties in the Petition are Chase Carmen Hunter and Circuit Court of Virginia, City of Fredericksburg. The Circuit Court of Virginia, City of Fredericksburg is the respondent and it did not file a "waiver of right to respond". It did not file a brief in opposition. According to SCOTUS rule 15.2, the respondent therefore, conceded the allegations in the petition as true. The petition 12-9428 is pending with the SCOTUS.

The petition alleged, among other things, that the Circuit Court of Virginia, City of Fredericksburg, acted without regard for the law, without regard for the essential elements of law, and violated the constitutional rights and human rights of the petitioner and caused her unlawful incarceration in support of Orange County Florida Circuit Court case 2009-CA-037513.

Florida District Court of Appeals, First District, Case 12-5889

This petition was filed by Chase Carmen Hunter, the owner of the Dangerous Dog Insurance® trademark. It alleges that the Florida Department of Financial Services suspended Hunter's non-resident Florida insurance license only because Orange County Florida Circuit Court case 2009-CA-037513 had directed it to do so after the Orange County Florida Circuit Court found Hunter in contempt of court despite the fact that the Orange County Florida Circuit Court had no jurisdiction over an insurance license and despite the fact that Hunter had never been served with the lawsuit, had never appeared, had never been summonsed to appear for contempt proceedings, and was found in contempt of court in her absence.

This record also indicates that Hunter's non-resident insurance license disappeared from the database with the Florida Department of Financial Services in about October 2012 after Hunter issued an insurance policy to a resident of the City of Jacksonville, Florida, for his compliance with an ordinance of the City of Jacksonville. Subsequently, the City of Jacksonville in Duval County, Florida, in the administration of the resident's court case number 16-2012-IN-062056-AXXX-MA, refused to accept the resident's insurance policy. This refusal was based only on the belief that Hunter's non-resident Florida insurance license was suspended. Subsequently, the resident's dog was euthanized by the City of Jacksonville Animal Care and Control because the resident was accused of failing to provide proof that he had replaced the insurance policy issued by Hunter.

On May 6, 2013, the Florida District Court of Appeals, First District, quashed the suspension of Hunter's non-resident Florida insurance license, thereby nullifying the suspension and confirming that the suspension was not valid.

United States District Court, Richmond Virginia, Case 3:12cv325-JAG

A complaint was filed by Chase Carmen Hunter in April 2012 in the United States District Court, Richmond, Virginia, which alleges that the Orange County Florida Circuit Court case 2009-CA-037513 was fraudulent. The first-named defendant was the judge in the Orange County Florida Circuit Court case. The United States District Court dismissed the case on the basis that judges cannot be sued because they have judicial immunity.

Florida Department of Financial Services

The Florida Department of Financial Services ("FDFS") filed case number 12-3622PL in November 2012 in which it accused the owner of the Dangerous Dog Insurance® trademark of violating Florida insurance regulations because she caused the issuance of a renter insurance policy that did not have an exclusion for liability arising from the ownership or care of a dog in response to a request from a dog owner to purchase liability insurance that provided coverage for her dog. The FDFS's argument in its complaint is that the trademark owner violated insurance regulations because the renter insurance policy did not provide coverage only for liability claims arising from the ownership or care of a dog. The record in this FDFS case 12-3622PL also shows that the FDFS admitted that there is no policy form filed with the FDFS for use in Florida that restricts liability insurance coverage only to the ownership or care of a dog.

Indiana Department of Insurance

The Indiana Department of Insurance ("IDOI") filed case number 11521-AG12-0912-106 in November 2012 in which it accused the owner of the Dangerous Dog Insurance® trademark of violating Indiana insurance regulations because she caused the issuance of a renter insurance policy that did not have an exclusion for liability arising from the ownership or care of a dog in response to a request from a dog owner to purchase liability insurance that provided coverage for her dog. The IDOI's argument in its complaint is that the trademark owner violated insurance regulations because the renter insurance policy did not provide coverage only for liability claims arising from the ownership or care of a dog. The record in this IDOI case also shows that the IDOI admitted that there is no policy form filed with the IDOI for use in Indiana that restricts liability insurance coverage only to the ownership or care of a dog. The public record in this IDOI case also shows that an employee of the IDOI contacted the insurance company that had issued the renter insurance policy and made statements to the insurance company regarding the insured's dogs and that the insurance company immediately cancelled the insurance policy. The Indiana resident's dogs were subsequently euthanized because her insurance policy had been cancelled.