Can the Landlord be held liable for injuries caused by a Tenants Dog?
Dogs & Insurance
Everyone is probably aware that they can be held liable for injuries caused by their dogs. All landlords should be aware that they can also be held liable for injuries caused by their tenants’ dogs.
These days, dogs can also be the cause of insurance problems, whether your homeowner policy or policies for your rental properties. In other words, man’s best friend may be your insurance policy’s worst enemy. Dogs or those of your tenants can make it more difficult, more costly, maybe even impossible to obtain insurance coverage for your property.
Many insurance companies now refuse to write or renew policies for homeowners who have certain breeds of dogs or for landlords who allow tenants to keep those breeds. It’s basically a case of canine profiling.
Large dogs that can easily inflict serious damage concern insurance companies the most. Dog breeds usually found on an insurance company’s “forbidden list” include Akita, Alaskan Malamute, Chow Chow, Doberman Pinscher, German Shepard, Pit Bull, Presa Canario, Rottweiler, Siberian Husky, Strattfordshire Bull Terrier, and Wolf Hybrid.
Insurance companies explain that they’re only trying to reduce risks and costs so that they can keep premiums down. They claim that they’re eliminating coverage for breeds known to have high bite rates. High-profile dog mauling cases, including those resulting in death for children, have increased concerns.
Dog lovers answer that any dog can be aggressive and bite and that many breeds on the dangerous list are as kind, gentle and no more apt to bite than the average dog. Accordingly, they say that the uninsurable breed system is neither scientific nor fair. Some insurance companies agree that it’s difficult to make blanket judgments about breeds, but insurance decisions are basics on statistics and statistics show that certain breeds are riskier.
Insurance companies report that the cost of dog liability has been rising steadily for years. Insurers argue that it’s necessary to apply their standards because they can’t determine the disposition of an individual dog. Combined with the overall increase in costly claims and lawsuits for everything from toxic mold to natural disasters, it shouldn’t be surprising that insurance companies are looking for ways to increase profits.
Insurance companies are dealing with the dog problem in various ways. One is to refuse coverage for “dangerous” breeds based on a company’s’ list of breeds based on frequency of dog bites, the reputation of the breed, the insurance company’s own research, and information from the CDC. In many cases, the owner can get a policy, but the insurer simply will not pay any claims related to the listed dogs.
This may be tolerable for homeowner policies because the homeowner has control over his own dogs and, just as importantly, knows his specific animals and can therefore judge the risk with some confidence. Landlords and property managers do not have this option. Their only options are to find a company without a list of dangerous dogs or with list that doesn’t include the critical breeds – with no certainly that things won’t change by the time of next policy renewal.
Many companies refuse to provide dog coverage in rental insurance policies period because they know that landlords cannot really fully control the breed of dog brought in by tenants. Some companies deal with the issue by charging higher premiums for landlords who allow listed breeds and for homeowners who have those breeds.
Some landlords attempt to deal with the issue by requiring tenants to provide their own insurance for their dogs. Dog liability coverage is usually available with a renter policy, likely with the same breed restrictions as for a landlord policy. Landlords who allow dogs based on their tenants obtaining liability coverage for the dogs should make proof of insurance a condition of possession. Lease agreements should contain adequate clauses to properly deal with the issue.
However, although proof of insurance can be required as a condition of initial possession, it is difficult to be certain that the policy remains in effect. The issue of continuing insurance coverage problem may be considered solved by requiring that the landlord be named an additional insured on the tenant’s policy, as this will theoretically provide the landlord with 10 days written notice from the insurance company if the policy is cancelled.
However, this isn’t entirely satisfactory because, taking into account mail delivery delays, the landlord may only have a few days to attempt to deal with a cancellation. Then, if the tenant fails to cooperate in keeping his insurance in place, there is little the landlord can do except give notice and commence eviction. This eviction will take significant time and will result in extra cost and hassle. Furthermore, success may depend on adequacy of the subject lease clauses and the whims of a Judge. Then, if the tenant is evicted, significant losses may result due to down time of the unit. Although any losses can theoretically be recovered from the tenant because he breached his lease, in practice, it may be another matter.
The bottom line is that landlords must be careful about allowing dogs on their properties, particularly if the landlords’ own liability policies exclude the breeds owned by the tenants. Remember, anyone who sues the tenant for anything related to occupancy of the landlord’s property will almost certainly name the landlord in the suit and the landlord will have to spend the time and money to defend against the suit even if ultimately successful in his defense.
Another way in which insurers are attempting to limit dog-related losses from homeowners is to consider policies on an individual basis. They look on a case-by-case basis at each home that has a dog. If they decide that the dog might be a problem, they write an endorsement that excludes the dog from the policy. This approach is also not practical for landlord rental policies because the landlord has little knowledge about or control of tenants’ dogs.
Homeowners have a defense against rising rates or an outright cancellation of their homeowner’s policy. That is, to have their dog properly trained and to provide their insurance company with documentation for that training. Homeowners can also reduce their insurance costs by neutering or spaying their dogs because this can often minimize behavioral problems. Securing the dog on the homeowner’s property also reduces problems. Again, these methods are of little use to the landlord.
For homeowners, if these moves won’t convince their insurer to cover their dogs, they should try to find a more liberal insurer. One final solution for the homeowner might be to obtain home insurance having no dog coverage from one company and add dog liability coverage, at additional cost, from a firm that specializes in that type of insurance. While it can be expensive, it is available.
Although homeowners have possible options for keeping their dogs even when they are on the insurer’s list of dangerous breeds, landlords don’t have the same options. If landlords wish to minimize the risk of significant financial losses resulting from dog-related injuries or deaths, their only choice is to fully prohibit blacklisted dogs in their properties, rigorously monitor the ban, and aggressively enforce it with zero tolerance. To do otherwise is to risk significant financial loss, even to loss of their property. If the landlord is not adequately insured and if all real estate is not properly vested, there is a risk of the loss of other assets as well.
Landlords should inform all potential applicants about their animal policies at the first point of contact. Landlords should be sure to include adequate enforceable clauses in their lease documents. These clauses should include detailed statements regarding (1) the restrictions and (2) the penalties for violating them. Landlords should monitor their properties regularly and vigorously enforce their animal policies, as this will both minimize time of exposure to risk and may provide some improved level of defense in court. Finally, landlords should keep in mind that the risk is not only for the owner of an urban multi-unit apartment building but also for the owner of a country property.