Dear Animal Advocates,

As a person who owns two rescued rottweilers and generally carries the appropriate insurance for life's risks,I contacted my insurance broker for information on this issue. After checking with the companies whose insurance product he sells, he informed me that at least here in Victoria and for his clients, this was a non issue. They do not care whether I have a dog nor what breed it is. I would be interested to know if anyone who owns these types of controversial breeds is actually having difficulting buying insurance or having to pay extra for it?

He further advised me that it would be more likely that a company would simply refuse to renew a policy for a chronic offender (more than one claim) than institute revised underwriting policies.

I would presume that most responsible dog owners and owners with high net worths would carry insurance and that irresponsible dog owners and people with no assets wouldn't bother. The probability of being sued if you have no insurance and no assets is low.

Insurance and the assessment of risk can be interesting topics but I don't think insurance is an issue in the debate over the ownership of controversial breeds.