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

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

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.