Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb1386 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers consider banning insurer underwriting based on dog breed; insurers and advocates clash
Summary
Senate Bill 1386 would bar homeowners and tenants insurers from discriminating against policyholders on the basis of dog breed and require study of service-animal misrepresentation penalties. Legislators and advocates argued insurance practices and animal-safety data at a committee hearing.
A proposed prohibition on using dog breed as a underwriting factor drew bipartisan support from lawmakers and bipartisan pushback from insurers and their trade groups at a public hearing.
Senate Bill 1386 would bar homeowners or tenants insurance policies that deny, cancel or refuse coverage solely because the owner or household keeps a particular dog breed or mixture of breeds; it would also direct study of penalties for misrepresenting a pet as a service animal. Supporters including Sen. Bob Duff said breed-based exclusions are often not supported by injury data and unfairly penalize owners of particular breeds.
"I strongly support section 1 of the bill, which prohibits homeowners insurance or tenants insurance policy from discriminating based on harboring or owning a dog of a specific breed or a mixture of breeds," Sen. Duff told the committee, saying insurers often rely on subjective perceptions of breed risk.
Insurers cite injury severity and underwriting discretion
Representatives of the Insurance Association of Connecticut and other industry witnesses urged caution. Connor Rek of the Insurance Association said multiple medical studies show that attacks by large, muscular breeds such as pit bulls are statistically more likely to result in severe injuries and higher hospital costs. He recommended matching the bill to the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) model by limiting the prohibition to when breed is used "solely" as an underwriting factor and by allowing carriers to defend claims if they are required to cover breeds they would otherwise exclude.
Legislative path and requested changes
Industry witnesses suggested two drafting changes: insert the word "solely" in section 2 (as in section 1) to avoid unintended underwriting constraints, and shift the legal standard for dog-injury liability from strict liability to negligence if carriers are required to cover breeds insurers now exclude; that change would permit insurers to defend claims if coverage is mandated.
Committee members asked advocates and insurers to confer to craft language that balances owner protections and market functioning. No vote was taken at the hearing.
