Sadly it would still be pointless. It would give you an average at that time, but insurance companies calculate their risks constantly. Quotes are forever changing based on the information gained from other data, claims etc. If you did an average this month and then another the next month the results would be different again. Unless you know each companies underwriting criteria which would allow you to remove all other variables, then there's little information to be gained.

I'm sorry to rain on the parade, but it's impossible to gain accurate information re one particular aspect of a breed this way as there are too many other risk factors involved.

No, don't accept that. The more health problems that a breed has, the more expensive that breed is going to cost to insure - hence the reason the Dogue de Bordeaux are top of the list. It's not about numbers, it is about risk. There may be, to paint a completely fictitious analogy, just 10 Lesser Spotted English Setters in the UK, but these 10 Lesser Spotted English Setters have a very high chance of dropping down dead of a heart attack because congenitally the breed is known to suffer from heart problems - the breed is very popular on the continent, but plagued with this congenital heart condition. DESPITE the fact that there are only 10 of this breed in the UK, they are going to be virtually impossible to insure, because there is a known significant genetic defect in the breed. It is in particular known genetic defects that make particular breeds very expensive to insure, nothing to do with the numbers of a particular breed or the popularity. It is purely all about the percentage of risk. Which is where the postcode comes in. I live in the depths of nowhere, we have very little crime around here, but 20 odd miles away in Northampton, things are very different, which would probably affect the cost of Tai's insurance were we to move to Northampton. Again, this is all about statistical risk, this is how insurance companies work.

That is quite correct, but they all sing from the same hymn sheet more of less. They all use the same stats to calculate their premiums.

Each company has to find a niche in the market, therefore each company has it's policies underwritten to reflect that particular niche, otherwise they'd all be competing in the same market. I spent a some time working with underwriters when I worked at AXA, this is how I know about it. Yes one company might view a pedigree as more of a risk, but the next company might not depending upon the way they calculate that risk. There's so much more to it than, breed, postcode, prices, health statistics etc.

Your niche point is to a certain extent true. We all know of the insurance company who are prepared to insure, say, an elderly dog, whereas another won't touch it with a bargepole. The insurance company we have just moved to will not take on ANY dog after the age of 8, but when you join them, provided the dog is less than 8, they promise not to increase the premiums each year based purely on age, unlike Tesco!

But as far as a particular pedigree goes, they all sing from the same hymn sheet, based on the breed statistics. Value of the dog must of course play a small part, and to a greater part, postcode, but by far the highest element of risk for any insurance company is veterinary fees - hence the reason why some breeds are more expensive than others to insure.

Wow, that's really interesting. Thanks Azz, that must have taken a fair while to compile that.

Some things didn't surprise me, namley that the giant breeds cost more. Not sure why the DDB is a higher category than say a Bullmastiff or Mastiff for example though.

I was suprised by some of the smaller dogs, Bichon Frise and Westie for example that they are so low. I know that I've read a lot of threads on here by owners of these breeds and they can have a lot of skin complaints which cost a lot to treat.

It's ONE of the the percentage risks - that's my point. Health in relation to risk is only a very small part of the calculation making the information useless as there are too many other variables to be able to assess how that company actually views the health of the breed, rather than the risk as a whole. Popularity will play a part as it will push up the premiums of those more popular breeds because as a result of being more popular they have more claims. Say for example there were 10 DDB on the books and 100 Labs, because DDB are quite rare and Labs popular. If DDB are more unhealthy than Labs then lets say the DDB have 60% claim rate and Labs 20% - that means they pay out for 6 DDB and 20 Labs. Each claim is £100 for the sake of argument. The DDB cost the company £600 and the Labs £2,000. So yes, DDB may be more unhealthy, but the increased amount of Labs means they cost the insurance company more! Do you really think the insurance company would continue to view Labs as a lower risk JUST because they're healthier????

Health is only one aspect of the risk, there are many other variables.

Thanks for the posts guys - I think you covered Rip's questions/concerns... saves me having to

Seriously tho, Rips - I never said this was about which breeds are healthy and which are not (reread the first post if you don't believe me!). I was at first interested in that point (when it first came up in another thread) - as I thought insurance companies if anyone would know whether a breed is higher risk regarding health or not. But as it turns out it seems the larger the breed the more costly it is to insure - with a few surprises in there and the reason for which might be anyone's guess.

It could be health - it could be higher risk of being stolen, who knows BUT what I think you will find is that the same bands per breed will likely be seen across the board for the majority of insurers - as many insurance companies share info/have the same underwriters. So you'll probably find crossbreeds are the cheapest or one of the cheapest to insure with any insurer, and likewise, DDB's are very likely to be one of the most expensive.

I too must admit, that it felt like you were a little aggrieved that your breed is in the higher range of these results - as I really don't see what the problem is. These are the results from one company, for every breed with all other info the same - so at the very least, it shows you exactly how one company assesses the risk of each breed.

Made interesting reading, my three are a tad more expensive than that, poor Jamie will probably be a lot more when I renew after his amputation...

Hmmm...

For Pet Plan's lifetime cover I pay as follows:

Molly, 7.5 years old - West Highland White Terrier - £29.42 per month. Been insured with Pet Plan from around 6 months old. Claimed twice for minor things - few years ago for a blocked tear duct which was sorted and is completely fine and just last year for tooth abscess - dental x-rays, tooth removed etc. Many insurers won't pay out for dental treatment as far as I'm aware. The bill was almost £500, I paid £80 excess and that was it.

Roxy, 10 years old - smallish crossbreed - £22.04 per month. Insured from 5 years old when we got her as a rescue. Claimed once a couple of years ago or so for a wart removal. Again, only had to pay the excess.

I'm happy to pay that bit extra for Pet Plan because I believe they are the best insurers for my pets and one of the best insurers who pay out when expected to and pay out fast, so that suits me fine!

It definitely gives me a bit of peace of mind, especially as they get older, plus you never know what's around the corner and even a thousand pounds in savings could be gone in an instant on one dog's vet bill! Too much of a risk for me so unless I become a millionaire - which isn't likely to happen - I will continue to insure my pets.

Cannot remember what the price was to start with for either, too long ago, I can't remember last week let alone years ago.