 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Contact Sales! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by LAF on March 19, 2003 at 07:33:21:
In Reply to: insurance for non-dangerous snakes? posted by meretseger on March 19, 2003 at 06:58:52:
I think the whole point would be that insurance would only be required for animals which pose a potential risk, corns and ball pythons would obviously be exempt but maybe larger constrictors (african rocks, retics etc) should be covered. The problem with classifying the rear fangted in terms of risk potential would be hard, I guesse hognose would be exempt but mangroves might go on the first tier, but where dou you draw a line. The UK DWA act draws lines for itself but at the expense of its credibility, and as we all know, our knowledge base changes, 5 years ago how many people would have know Philodryas to be a potentially lethal genus? The interesting thing with insurance is that once established in a field, companies tend to base cost against experience of payout rather than just potential risk, so if, for example, copperhead owners were 4 or 5 times more likely to get nailed by their snake than mamba owners (through something like complaicance or wotever)then the premium situation could reverse (like in the UK I can, bizarrely, insure an old Mitsubishi Colt GTi cheaper than I can an old Peugeot diesel estate). At the end of the day though the insurance thing was just an idea to see what people thought, and in reality is more likely to be eaten by Wolfgangs flying pigs than ever see the light of day.
Cheers, Lee.
