BobbyRobertson t1_j5kc04x wrote on January 23, 2023 at 4:57 PM

Reply to comment by Prestigious-Tie2049 in A Bill Would Require Insurance Companies To Provide Equal Coverage to Dog Owners by NewsHugh

Sure, but that apparently doesn't translate into increased costs for insurance companies. If it did they would be able to demonstrate that with their actuarial tables. They can demonstrate that young drivers crash more and cause more damage when they drive, so they have to pay higher premiums. If they can't demonstrate that pitbull owners cause more claims than other breeds then they shouldn't be able to charge more.

Prestigious-Tie2049 t1_j5kest4 wrote on January 23, 2023 at 5:14 PM

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/09/13/americas-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-infographic/?sh=6efdd56162f8

https://www.injuredcalltoday.com/dog-attacks-by-breed/

Sorry dude. The facts have been well studied for decades.

BobbyRobertson t1_j5kf1zm wrote on January 23, 2023 at 5:16 PM

Then why can't the insurance companies show that it costs them more money?

That's all I want them to do. If they want more money from people that own pitbulls, they should be able to show that pitbulls cost them more money. According to that State Representative in the article, they can't do that.

Insurance isn't a game of "I charge what I want". They use actuarial science, which might as well be magic to me, to determine what to charge. If that process can't show that pitbulls cost insurance companies more, then they shouldn't get to charge more.

evilmonkey002 t1_j5l7k02 wrote on January 23, 2023 at 8:13 PM

I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. You’re absolutely right. Insurance companies are the best bean counters in the world and if pit bulls were actually costing them money there is a 100% chance they could show it.

bobupvotes t1_j5le5r5 wrote on January 23, 2023 at 8:54 PM

Some clarification on that bolded statement.

Being unable to actuarially demonstrate it shouldn’t be interpreted as there’s no statistical difference. Actuaries are overly conservative and will not make public statements like ‘breed x is more dangerous than y’ unless they have definitive evidence and are willing to fight on that hill. Otherwise, there’s reputation risk and potential punishment from the governing body for making statements like that.

What that statement reads to me is that they don’t have enough data to work with to control for all the variables and make a definitive conclusion about breeds. For reference, pet insurance is still very much considered a niche market in insurance and just might not have enough in-house data (or consortium data if that exists for the pet market) to come to any conclusions that they're willing to stand behind.

Source: Am an actuary

BobbyRobertson t1_j5n3o0a wrote on January 24, 2023 at 4:08 AM

Thanks for the insight!

I understand it doesn't mean it's proof there's no difference between the two situations, but I feel insurance companies should have to show their work to treat people differently. It feels like it'd be too easy for them to overestimate their risk and lock classes of people out of the market. But obviously I'm not in the industry, I'm just skeptical

bobupvotes t1_j5nass3 wrote on January 24, 2023 at 5:13 AM

Pricing is often a race to the bottom. If you’re pricing someone out, another company will gladly undercut you and make the sale. Fact that all companies are practicing this likely means they have some data supporting a difference between breeds but aren’t comfortable coming out and saying there’s a definitive difference.

noonan1371 t1_j5nty25 wrote on January 24, 2023 at 9:06 AM

Sorry dude, Your facts are incorrect. A pitbull is a generic term for many different breeds. Sorry, Forbes was too ignorant to look deeper into the fact that a pitbull is not a stand-alone breed.