1. Pamela Carlisle-Frank Ph.D., Joshua Frank Ph.D.,
An Analysis of Breed Discrimination of Domesticated Dogs by Insurance Companies
Pamela Carlisle-Frank Ph.D., Joshua Frank Ph.D.,
The Foundation for Interdisciplinary Research and Education Promoting Animal Welfare (FIREPAW) (518) ,

2. Discrimination based on dog breed is common and growing
-Municipal/Regional breed restrictions (Denver, Cincinnati, Miami, Lanett, AL, Canada, possibly San Francisco)
-Public Attitudes, shelters
-Insurance Companies

3. Research indicates there are dog bite rate differences, but discrimination may still be based partially on misinformation
-Not all dog bite rate differences associated with breed are caused by the dog breed
*Training/relationship/role of animal to guardian/owner
*Dangerous breeds change over time
*Breed labeling not consistent
-Other factors are just as important in driving bite rates
-Importance of breed may be overused or overstated
*Case in point: Insurance Companies

4. Breed discrimination by Insurance Companies
-Many companies refuse to cover or cancel policies of people with certain breeds (Including Akita, boxer, chow, Doberman pinscher, Rottweiler, pit bull, Presa Canario, and wolf hybrid, Airedale, Alsatian shepherd, American bulldog, American Eskimo, Bull Mastiff/Mastiff, Chesapeake Bay retriever, Dalmatian, German Shepherd, Giant Schnauzer, Great Dane, Husky, Kerry Blue Terrier, Rhodesian Ridgeback, and Spitz (Kirk, 2004; Bertolucci, 2004)
-Many companies discriminate: (Allstate, California State Automobile Association, Mercury Insurance Group, Hartford Financial Services Group, Travelers, Nationwide, Selective, Quincy Mutual and Wawanesa Insurance (Bertolucci, 2004, Kirk, 2004, and Toutant, 2003)
-Others reportedly do hidden discrimination

5. Existing dog bite research
-CDC research--includes Sacks, et al, (2000) and Sacks, Sattin, and Bonzo (1989)
*Greatest number of fatalities between 1979 and were pit bulls, followed by rottweilers and then by German shepherds
*Most commonly cited source by insurance companies
*Study authors warn not to use for this purpose
*Fatalities only, and has no control to calculate odds
-Other studies without controls include Avner and Baker (1991) , Wright (1985), Delise (2002)
*Most dangerous breed varies across time and studies

6. Existing dog bite research (continued)
-Gershman, Sacks, and Wright (1994) used control
*Data is for Denver
*Most dangerous breeds had about 5 times the bite rate
*Chaining dogs and not having dogs fixed showed risk similar in magnitude to breed
*Fatalities only, and has no control to calculate odds
-Thompson (1997) also used a control
*Data for Australia
*Most dangerous breed (Doberman pinschers) about 5 times the bite rate

7. Much is made by insurance industry of high cost of dog bites but a little context changes picture
-Dog bites cost industry $345.5 million in 2002
Context: Property and Casualty made $369.7 billion in 2002
-Dog bites make up a quarter of liability claims
Context: five cents for every dollar of premiums earned went to liability claims
-Dog bite liability costs have risen 38% between 1995 and Context: Premiums rose 66.8% in same period
-Dog bite liability risk for dangerous breeds is too high
EVEN A HIGH RISK BREED HAS AN EXPECTED COST UNDER TEN CENTS PER PREMIUM DOLLAR
THIS WOULD REQUIRE ONLY A MODEST RATE ADJUSTMENT

8. What about pit bulls?
-Neither the Australia study nor the Denver study had enough pit bull data to include them
-Using fatality data and estimates of pit bull population we put pit bull risk at similar to the other “high risk breed” (5 times normal risk as most likely case, even in worst case it would be 10 times normal risk)
*For many reasons we believe this estimate is upward biased
*Even pit bulls could be insured with a minor premium

9. More Context

10. More Context

11. Why would insurance companies overreact?
-Subject to same biases, psychological and sociological influences as anybody else
-Non-competitive forces insulating insurance industry (monopoly power, adverse selection leading to “following the pack”, “satisficing”
-Breed discrimination as proxy for other forms of discrimination (ethnic/neighborhood/aggression)

12. Breed discrimination summary
-Insurance companies likely to be overreacting
-Little attempt to mitigate impact (spay/neuter, chaining)
-Little evidence from interviews of deep analysis of issue
Pamela Carlisle-Frank Ph.D., Joshua Frank Ph.D.,
The Fundation for Interdisciplinary Research and Education Promoting Animal Welfare (FIREPAW) (518) ,