Insurance coverage Q&A: Does your dog bite?

Travelers NY recently made changes to homeowner and umbrella policies regarding liability exclusions for certain animals.

It seems to me this is a loophole around the dog breed legislation passed in New York that prohibits Insurance companies from refusing to write homeowner or umbrella insurance for persons who own certain breeds of dogs. With these two amendments to the contract language, the company doesn’t have to refuse to write the insurance as the exclusions will take care of isolating the company from any liability claims that result from certain dogs. Would love your opinion on these endorsements.

— New York Subscriber

The statute states that no insurer shall refuse to issue or renew, cancel or increase premium based solely upon harboring or owning any dog of a specific breed or mix of breeds. The umbrella exclusion is for damage/injury from a breed controlled by statute because of public safety concerns, or is wild, venomous, poisonous, or has a bite history etc. This is different than a generic dog breed exclusion — it’s not specific to any breed, only those animals already restricted by the state because of safety concerns. This would be dogs falling into the definition of a dangerous dog.

New York defines a dangerous dog as any that without justification attacks a person or companion/farm/domestic animal and causes injury/death or acts threatening. (NY CLS Agr. & M §108) That’s the dog the exclusion is removing coverage for — it’s not a particular breed so the statute regarding dogs and homeowners insurance doesn’t apply. New York does not have any breed restrictions that I am aware of, it just goes by what is a dangerous dog.

So here’s how this works in practice: An insurer can’t refuse to write a policy for an insured who owns a Rottweiler just because the Rottweiler is a Rottweiler. However, if the insured has a Poodle who has bitten the next-door neighbor unprovoked, that Poodle may now be classified by the state as a dangerous dog. The umbrella exclusion applies since the animal has previously bitten or inflicted injury upon a person. It’s not because the Poodle is a Poodle, it’s because the Poodle is a jerk. It could be a cat, a Chihuahua, or any domestic pet if it becomes aggressive. The exclusion is also for wild animals and those venomous or poisonous animals, such as snakes.

I don’t see that the exclusion is a loophole, it seems reasonable to me within the range of the New York regulations.

Related:

• Cost of dog bite & injury claims grew by double digits in 2022
• Arizona, dog breeds and home insurance policies
• Mississippi moves to regulate pet insurance