Connecticut lawmakers are considering a bill that would prevent insurance companies from penalizing policyholders who are either homeowners or renters based on their dog’s breed or the training of service animals on the property.
The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Tammy Nuccio, was introduced in the Joint Committee on Insurance and Real Estate on Feb. 25, according to a report from AM Best. It would prohibit insurers from using breed as a factor in setting premiums, canceling policies or refusing to issue or renew coverage. The legislation also includes protections for dogs being trained to assist individuals who are blind, deaf or have mobility impairments.
An exception is included for cases where a specific dog has been deemed dangerous, provided the designation is supported by actual loss experience involving the animal. In such cases, insurers would be permitted to charge a “reasonably higher” premium.
According to a report from CT Mirror, the state of Connecticut currently imposes strict liability on dog owners, but it is one of only eight states without a dangerous dog law.
Some areas in the state, like Hartford, New Britain and Danbury, have enacted their own dangerous dog ordinances, while the rest have the Connecticut General Statutes to follow.
In Florida, lawmakers are also considering legislation related to dangerous dogs, though with a different approach. The bill would require owners of dangerous dogs to carry at least $100,000 in liability insurance.
Rather than defining dangerous dogs by breed, Florida’s bill bases the designation on prior incidents and behaviors.
Eric George, president of the Insurance Association of Connecticut, said similar legislative efforts to limit breed restrictions have been introduced before.
“If you take away an insurer’s ability to assess and price risk appropriately, what you’re going to do is have rates go up in other areas,” George said. He noted that people who do not own dogs or certain breeds could see premium increases if the bill is passed.
Another concern, George said, is that Connecticut law holds dog owners strictly liable for bites, meaning insurers cannot argue negligence as a defense. He added that while lawmakers have previously expressed some understanding of insurers’ concerns, it remains unclear whether this bill will be amended to include a negligence standard.
“What we have said to legislators in the past is if you are going to require us to cover this, you have to give us the ability to defend,” he said. “You need to change the standard from strict liability to negligence. Rather than it just being able to argue damages, we should be able to defend the case.”
