There is an interesting bill being presented in my state to prohibit home insurers to use breed specific tactics in issuing or reissuing policies, even for rental homes. It looks like there's a good chance it will pass.

I'm not a big fan of the government telling them what they can and can't do with their privately owned business.

There are companies that ask about bite history only.

I understand your point, but as someone who has been affected by insurers who use breed specific criteria to me its a step forward.

The states have a long standing interest in insurance regulatory law (i.e. regulating insurance products and policies, requiring proof of solvency, and protecting against unfair trade practices.)

Dog breed-specific policy decisions (as we all know) are meritless. It is exactly the sort of thing that states should prohibit, IMO. Jodi--I hope it passes in your state!

I typically disagree with FEDERAL government controlling how a private business does business, but this is a state level thing that affects thousands of families.

A family of 5 buys a house, only to find that they have three choices - abandon 2 of their family members or be in violation of state and federal laws (as well as breaching the contract for their bank held mortgage) by having inadequate home owners insurance. Or they could opt to pay potentially thousands more than their peers in order to keep their family intact, which is blatant discrimination.

I currently have State Farm H.O. ins, but have shopped around a few times. I have only been asked one thing; do I own a dog? When I tried to explain what kind of dog I had, I was told that it didn't matter. Insurers pay every legitimate bite claim, regardless of the circumstances. Even putting up "No Trespassing" or "Beware of Dog' signs doesn't mitigate liability. I informed them when I went from a 35# mix to a GSD, but there was still no change in my premium.

I'm confused about the discrimination thing, Sam. Did you mean that two of the family members are dogs? Every state specifically declares that animals are property, and thus can be excluded under the terms of any contract. With your work in foster/rescue of Malinois and bullies, you are exposing your insurer to much more liability than the family next door who has three kids, a hamster, and some goldfish.

IMHO, I'm glad if we can eliminate any BSL. Unfortunately, in the long term, the result will pbly be across-the-board rate hikes for anyone who owns a dog, whether it's a toy poodle or a Dogo Argentino.