You’re a good pup. No bite record. You mind your own territory and your master (most of the time), and suddenly you learn you are uninsurable! I read and re-read the stranger’s decision about me and
(1) the following types of purebred dogs or a mix breed including one of these types:
- American Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, or Staffordshire Bull Terriers, all commonly known as Pit Bulls;
- Doberman Pinschers;
- Rottweilers;
- Chow Chows; or
- Presa Canarios;
(2) wolf hybrids.
(3) dogs that have been trained to attack persons, property or other animals; or dogs that have been trained to guard persons or property.
(4) any dog, used in any manner, as a fighting dog or bred specifically for fighting.
(5) any dog with a prior history of:
- causing bodily injury to a person; or
- attacking or biting another animal;
established through insurance claims records, or through the
records of local public safety, law enforcement or other similar regulatory agency.
What does this mean? If I stir up some trouble when I’m with the groomer, a trainer, or that guy who always comes by the house to rake up the leaves (but never has a rake), my owner and I will both be out in the doghouse. You don’t need to tell me twice not to go to obedience school.
There have been some whispers in the dog park about hunting dogs getting the insurance axe next. The Jack Russell down the block is running in circles about all the dead vermin he’s left on various doorsteps over the years. I told him he’s got better odds at being categorized as a Pit Bull. Those darn Jacks get away with murder!
Seems to me that breed discrimination by insurers should be banned for the same reasons as racial discrimination among humans. And where is the sense in an insurer refusing coverage of a dog trained to safeguard the property it is insuring.

I used to be able to say “an alarm system aint got nuttin on me.” Now its got the discounted insurance premium.
When my owner’s confused, she’ll sometimes put on imaginary shoes (owned by the confusing person). This is usually followed by a few head nods – a human sign of enlightenment. Or it could be that she’s taken off the fake shoes.
So I put my paws in the insurer’s shoes (which I imagine to be steel orange laced up over-the-knee boots), and it’s a no-brainer to exclude harm caused by illegal acts (paragraph 4). I don’t have to agree with not giving a down and out pup a second-chance but I can see some sense in casting out the repeat offender from its umbrella of coverage (paragraph 5(b)). (Hopefully those squirrels haven’t reported me to the authorities).
So that leaves the rest, and me not moving anywhere in these boots. Here’s this dog’s take on why the insurer condemned me uninsurable: The insurer does not like aggressive dogs. Aggressive dogs equate to damage, which translates to money paid out and litigation headaches. There is some gene unique to pit bulls, chows, German Shepherds, Rotties, Presa canaries, and Dobermans but not common to dog DNA of any other breed. This gene is like a terminal illness; even the smallest amount will infect a dog, and plague both mutt and pure bred alike. To this one mutt, that seems like a pretty broad and sweeping stroke by the insurer.
After shaking things up in my head……and everywhere else, I decided to do some digging around the web.
That’s where I first came across the “warrior gene.” (Only after I dodged the other web with some good scouting on the part of that little kitten).

What was publicly available to this puppy? Not much….But I did find a reference or two to the warrior gene correlating with aggressive behavior with the caveat that nature or a traumatic experience play a role. Hmm…I can’t find those factors in this paper about me.
If I was going to tackle this challenge, I had to use every weapon I had. (After all, I am a warrior). My ears were up.
Then I heard one-third of human males might have the warrior gene. Being a warrior can’t be that bad if so many humans have it, right?
Once again, that little kitten pointed me in another direction –
the New York Times. Money’s important to the insurer, and humans pay money to have this news thrown into their territory, so it must be a good source. I did find some news that a certain gene might make mice more dominant, socially that is. Once mice came into the picture I couldn’t control that little kitten. The insurer’s willing to take a giant leap to label with a predisposition for aggression. And this puppy, warrior or not, has very short legs. The only leap I can take is to the conclusion there is no science for the insurer to stand on.
This dog’s conclusions:
1. Whoever coined the phrase “warrior gene” chose the word “warrior” for a reason.
I would like to know the man, woman, or canine that feels a negative emotion, defines a warrior to include a negative attribute, or thinks of a warrior in a negative light. This puppy eagerly awaits a lack of response.
2. Having a “warrior gene” doesn’t make me aggressive but it does make me more expensive.
If the insurer stood in the shoes of a warrior it would stand a lot taller. Maybe it would see a warrior fights for a cause and at another person’s direction. And then, maybe it would not write off dogs that are fighting for their owner’s safety, or their own. Or it might just see that the owner, not some bio-nonsense, is the biggest predictor of a dog’s behavior. But who can really blame a business for only seeing dollar signs.
3. Every dog owner needs a safety net. And an insurer should not insure what it believes is uninsurable. If we’re not moving to Pennsylvania, it looks like we need to move to a different insurer or I need to learn how to assist the handicapped.
4. But it makes this puppy sad to think of all those canine companions who haven’t found a home and are branded with a “buyer beware.”
That’s my bone of contention.
Getting a bad rap is one thing. But never getting a real chance at life is quite another. 
Do any other warrior pups or masters out there have a similar experience?