WeVote
Log In

Bill

JA

Bill

HB 6012

Insurance: insurers; property insurance denial, cancellation, or increased premiums for owners of certain breeds of dogs; prohibit. Amends 1956 PA 218 (MCL 500.100 - 500.8302) by adding sec. 2130a.

2023-2024 Regular Session Introduced by Joey Andrews and 14 co-sponsors

Michigan bill prohibits property insurers from denying coverage or raising rates based on dog breed ownership, affecting underwriting practices and consumer access to affordable homeowners insurance.

bill electronically reproduced 09/26/2024
#animals:dogs #insurance:insurers #insurance:other #insurance:propertyandcasualty
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 6012

Legislative bill overview

HB 6012 would prohibit Michigan insurance companies from denying, canceling, or increasing premiums for property insurance based solely on a homeowner's ownership of certain dog breeds. The bill amends the Michigan Insurance Code by adding a new section (2130a) that establishes this protection for pet owners.

Why is this important

Insurance discrimination based on dog breed affects homeowners' ability to obtain affordable property coverage and can stigmatize owners of breeds commonly labeled as "dangerous." This is a practical concern because some insurers have used breed restrictions as underwriting criteria, potentially making insurance unaffordable or unavailable for affected homeowners, particularly in lower-income neighborhoods where such policies have disparate impacts.

Potential points of contention

  • Actuarial data debate: Insurers may argue that certain breeds have higher claims rates for liability/injury, and restricting their underwriting flexibility removes relevant risk assessment tools; consumer advocates counter that individual dog behavior, training, and owner responsibility matter more than breed alone.
  • Scope of coverage: Unclear whether the bill applies only to property insurance (home/dwelling) or also to liability/umbrella policies, which insurers may argue are different risk categories than property damage.
  • Market impact: Insurers contend that restrictions could increase premiums for all customers by preventing risk segmentation; supporters argue the current system is discriminatory and based on stereotype rather than sound actuarial science.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.