Anyone who has watched a news show or read news online lately is aware that we are in a world where we are all searching for the truth from media outlets. Sometimes errors are made by people who are in too much of a hurry to learn the facts before spewing what they believe to be true online in chatrooms, blogs, or elsewhere.
In some cases, people writing about pet sitter liability coverage will go to great lengths to make it appear that their material is factual, when in reality they either do not comprehend coverage forms and/or do not have your best interests at heart. Truth and facts matter, so it is increasingly important to know the source and ask questions before accepting something you read online as true. As I have learned over the years, this is especially true for professional pet sitters seeking answers to proper business set ups, liability insurance, workers compensation and bonding. So for this briefing, let's look at some specific examples that I have come across and make certain everyone is aware of the facts when it comes to products we administer for association members.
Insurance comparison site misses the mark—and misinforms pet sitters.
In the last couple of months it was brought to my attention by several prospective pet sitters that our association liability insurance policy excluded theft, among many other things, per a comparison chart they had read online at www.petsits.com. Since I knew for a fact that we do cover theft and routinely pay many different types of theft claims under both the association liability and bond policies, I was eager to set the record straight. However, I was amazed at how the prospects were questioning what to believe. Over the years I have been aware of the online insurance comparison site and other sites written by people who are not licensed in insurance, or attorneys specializing in insurance, but I really didn't pay much attention or believe professional pet sitters were taking this information as factual, without contacting a licensed professional to fully verify the facts.
My first action was to go back and review the comparison site for any errors or inaccuracies pertaining to our coverage. What I found was that the insurance comparison chart not only had errors regarding the coverage we offer, but was very misleading about coverage and appeared to favor one provider over the others. As I carefully perused the site, I noticed their disclaimers stating "Professional United Pet Sitters LLC is NOT affiliated with any pet sitter and dog walker liability companies, including the ones listed below." It goes on to say "the owners are not liable for errors in or related to information presented here. Please contact the companies directly for more current information. The information listed is the limited understanding we have based on the info we've received. It may be right, or it may be inaccurate (emphasis added). Or the insurance may be changing while we speak. This is just for information purposes only, and we cannot and do not guarantee the accuracy in any way at any time. We are not personally or professionally affiliated with any insurance listed below (emphasis added)."
I have to applaud the authors of the site for their disclaimer and the recommendation to contact the companies directly for more current information, as they are not licensed insurance professionals and have clearly not read the coverage forms of our association policies or those of the various insurers listed.
In an effort to set the record straight, I emailed the site to request they make changes to our listing or remove us from their website. At the time I had no idea who I was dealing with, but I received an email back from a Dan Young stating he thought he updated the chart with the last changes I sent, and that it would take two or three weeks for them to make any more changes. Mind you, I have never spoken or communicated with this person or requested any changes to their site until this time. I let him know this and sent corrected information for 10 of the 25 questions as it pertained to BIC's association insurance and bonding policies. Yes, 40 percent of the information regarding our coverage was either incorrect or misleading.
To my amazement, his only response was to question me about our theft and mysterious disappearance coverage, which is a typical response I hear from sitters who are insured or comparing us with another insurer on their site. This particular insurer happens to be the same company the comparison site appears to favor (all of their coverage appears to be up to date, and they offer a $15 discount for Professional United Pet Sitter (PUPS) members). For the record, we do not have the words "mysterious disappearance" in our coverage form, nor does the other insurer in their most recent policy form. Over the last 20 years, I cannot recall a single mysterious disappearance claim being reported that was not covered under our association policy. We cover third-party theft under the association policy via United Specialty Insurance, and theft by you, your employees or ICs under the Travelers Bond. Here are examples of actual theft claims we have paid and routinely pay under those liability and bonding policies:
Liability Claims
- An insured sitter left a window/door open at a client's home. A burglar broke into the home and stole contents.
- A pet sitter left a client's dog in the fenced backyard. When she returned the dog was nowhere to be found and presumed to be stolen or run away.
- An insured sitter brought a friend along on a pet-sitting assignment and/or had a party at clients home. The clients returned to find items missing from the home.
- A pet sitter left a door unlocked to a client's home. When the sitter returned, it was evident that a burglary had occurred.
- An insured dog walker left a client's garage door open while on a walk. Various items missing from garage when the dog walker returned.
Bond Claims
- IC(s) or employee(s) stole clients' jewelry and later confessed.
- An employee stole electronics and jewelry from client.
- A pet sitter stole medication and cash from client
As you can see, most of the liability claims above involve theft and/or mysterious disappearance. All were covered by our association liability policy. In every single case, the pet sitter was given a defense, facts were considered, and claims were paid.
Dan's reply really made me question who he and the owners of this website actually were, and if they might be purposely misleading folks about our coverage, while promoting another insurer on the comparison. With a little assistance from Google, I was able to determine that Dan and Kelley Young are the founders and managers of Professional United Pet Sitters LLC. They have owned two separate pet-sitting businesses since 2003 in Dousman, Wis., and on their pet-sitting business website www.walkonthewoofside.com they promote that they are insured and bonded by Pet Sitter Associates LLC and provide a direct link to the PSA website.
At this point I came to the conclusion that the insurance comparison page on the www.petsits.com was unfair to our organization and also to many, if not all, other insurers listed on the site. Not only does the disclaimer admit that the information printed "may be right, or may be inaccurate" but come to find out that even the disclaimer itself obfuscates when it states "we are not personally or professionally affiliated with any insurance listed below." If you are personally insured by one of the insurers and promoting them on your pet sitting business website, and the insurer is giving a discount in return to all members of your association, would an average person conclude that you have no affiliation with any insurance company on your comparison site? Needless to say I requested that they remove all information regarding our agency and our products from their comparison web page.
Dan's response was to remove our name and logo, but leave our coverage listing. He apologized that our pleasant relationship had turned so sour. I quickly pointed out that we have never spoken or communicated in any way, so I was at a loss as to how he considered this to be a relationship? After threatening legal action, his wife Kelley interjected and admitted we did not have a relationship, and apologized, as they were confusing me with a rep they met in 2005. Many of you know I have headed up our association programs since 1995, yet no one from their organization has ever bothered to contact me to verify our coverage. They finally removed all likeness to our agency on their site.
More sites share misinformation on pet-sitter insurance and bonding.
After this ordeal I decided to do a Google search to see if there were any other questionable or inaccurate information coming up regarding insurance and bonding for pet sitters. And sure enough I found a second site www.eagleid.com written by a pet sitter selling a pet-sitting packet of forms, obviously not licensed in insurance, publishing inaccurate information. On this second site it states that "A bond protects the employer from dishonest acts (theft) caused by an employee or IC (Independent Contractor) of the employer. It does nothing for the pet-sitting client" and suggest the reader read this three times. The author claims to have received this information from a specific bonding company underwriter that does not specialize in bonds for pet sitters.
To say a bond does nothing for your client is questionable. Ask the pet-sitting clients who have been stolen from how thankful they were that their pet sitter was bonded, and were reimbursed for loss of jewelry, electronics, cash, etc. I think they would all agree that it saved time and avoided unnecessary litigation and were grateful to be reimbursed by the bond company for their loss. The author goes on to make other questionable statements about bonding that are certainly not true of our bond offering and can be shown by reading our association bond form, where we cover employees and IC's as well as the owner, and do not require a conviction clause. (Please note not all bonds or insurance policies are created equal.) And believe it or not, we have paid claims on owners and spouses who have stolen from their clients. The author states that a bond for a sole proprietor is "totally worthless", but again tell that to a client that you have never met before. A bond for a sole proprietor may not ever be used if you are honest and only work with clients who know and trust you. But if you are just starting out or wanting to grow and market to new customers, a bond provides your prospective clients with peace of mind that they will be reimbursed should you or anyone working on your behalf commit a theft while caring for their pets. If you are an established business and only work with people you know and trust, and do not utilize employees or ICs in your business, then yes, I would agree a bond is not needed and not worth purchasing. However it is important to understand your exposure before concluding a bond is totally worthless.
What is even more ridiculous are the statements made on the site regarding insurance, where it states, "Pet Sitting insurance is not necessarily required however, it may be a good idea...and if you are not clumsy and have waivers in your contract, you can get by without insurance." The site continues with statements about client's homeowners insurance being primary in most states and that the homeowners insurance carrier will pay and you will be liable for the deductible. Folks, if you take any of this information to be true, you could very well be out of business tomorrow. First off, all homeowners insurance policies exclude injuries to animals and pets, so the author has obviously never read a homeowners insurance policy. Second, all states vary as to what degree a pet sitter is liable for a dog bite. Yes the homeowner or pet owner may have some culpability if their dog bites, but it is never 100 percent on the owner if the bite takes place while the dog is in your care. And I can almost guarantee you that you/your business will be named in a suit if someone is bitten by a dog in your care and a suit is brought. Our association liability insurance provides you with defense coverage outside the limit of liability and even if you are not negligent or have a waiver in your contract, you would still require an attorney to respond and defend your business against a law suit.
When it comes to pet-sitter insurance and bonding, rely on the professionals.
These are just two examples of websites/comparisons written by pet sitters publishing inaccurate statements/comparisons regarding our association insurance and bonding coverage. I have also been alerted to many more false statements recently regarding insurance and bonding on pet-sitting blogs and chat rooms. Please do yourself and your business a favor, follow up on these sites or posts that are not written by a licensed insurance professional or an attorney specializing in insurance.
Just as pet owners should only use the services of professional pet sitters, it's important that you also look to professional (licensed) insurance agents who specialize in pet-sitter policies to get accurate information about the insurance and bonding policies available. Ask questions and be sure you get all the facts before following advice found on random posts or comparisons written by other pet sitters (regardless of how good they may sound or how long they have been in business). As demonstrated, if the person writing the information/blog/post is not actually reading coverage forms of all polices they are comparing—and fully comprehending them—they really are in no position to be advising or comparing for others. It may take a few more minutes to contact a professional, but it could save you a lot more time, headaches and claim problems in the long run. As always, if anyone has a question regarding the coverage we offer, please contact us, we are here to assist you and give you factual information, regardless of the insurance provider you choose to work with.