All this talk about ESA drama has me thinking. I require renters insurance from all tenants with $300,000.00 liability. Everybody has to have it, no exception. If there are 4 roomies.... They each have their own policy in their own name. If an applicant happens along with a fake ESA that is on the aggressive breed list then how will that work? Does the insurance carrier have to blindlessly accept responsibility for it because it got an ESA certificate out of a CrackerJax box ? I would have to pay more for a policy that covered it, so wouldn't the tenant be required to do the same.. The point is that obtaining liability insurance is required for all renters. If an ESA was stopping them from being able to obtain that requirement then what would the reasonable accomodation be? Would I be forced to waive the insurance requirement for that applicant ? The state similarly does this when requiring yearly leases for housing recipients even to LLs who only offer MTM. But that is a lease term, the ability to get Renter's insurance is a move in requirement. It is also a condition of approval.

Rents...the statute laws are vague and case law is barely beginning on ESA's. These are all good questions, and lawyers haven't soaked up enough of our money yet getting them all answered yet.

What I'd do in your case is submit the breed/type and pictures of the animal to your insurance carrier. If they refuse to offer coverage or would increase your coverage premium based on that specific animal, I believe you have some reasonable merit to deny as it would not be a reasonable accommodation. But that's S i d's armchair attorney advise. If you want real, legit advice, might check with your attorney.

David is correct, except that you need to have specific written documentation from that insurance provider that they will not allow the animal or will cancel your insurance if you take it. THEN you can argue it is not a reasonable accommodation.

You CANNOT just go "Well, my insurance company has a list of dangerous breeds and your ESA is on it, so you are denied." THAT will get you into legal trouble.

I think you'll find that insurance companies will make an except for an ESA even if it is on the list. Therefore, this doesn't get you out of taking them.

- John...

I just got a request for an ESA from an existing tenant.

HUD STATEMENT:

“if a housing provider’s insurance carrier would cancel, substantially increase the costs of the insurance policy, or adversely change the policy terms because of the presence of a certain breed of dog or a certain animal, HUD will find that this imposes an undue financial and administrative burden on the housing provider.”

NC: Yes, we already determined that above. What was said is that if you go that route, you need to have it documented by the insurance company that they refused that specific animal. You still can't do a blanket "my insurance company says no pits and this is a pit" thing.

Also, this case is a little different because, as he said, he doesn't provide the insurance -- he just requires it of them that they get their own.

- John...

RentsDue: I think you might be ok there. I think you'd state that you require ALL of your tenants to have renter's insurance. If they are unable to get it (for whatever reason -- ESA or not), then I think you'd be ok to deny them. It doesn't seem a violation of the FHAA to me.

Whether or not a judge would side with you is always another matter entirely. :)

- John...

P.S. Of course, I don't think their insurance would deny them. I think if they gave the ESA documentation to the Renter's Insurance company -- they would also allow it.

JOHN:

I am confused. Are you saying that he as a property owner doesn't have property insurance? It's the property owners insurance that allows the owner the ability to reject the prospective tenant.

It probably will have to sound something like, "You can have your ESA, but you can't have a breed of ESA on the restricted breeds list from our insurance.

That right there will put a damper on their pamper.