pet insurance (by Hammer [TN]) Aug 9, 2018 6:22 AM
pet insurance (by RathdrumGal [ID]) Aug 9, 2018 6:32 AM
pet insurance (by Vee [OH]) Aug 9, 2018 7:14 AM
pet insurance (by Oregon Woodsmoke [ID]) Aug 9, 2018 7:40 AM
pet insurance (by Robert J [CA]) Aug 9, 2018 8:22 AM
pet insurance (by John... [MI]) Aug 9, 2018 8:53 AM
pet insurance (by John... [MI]) Aug 9, 2018 8:55 AM
pet insurance (by Hammer [TN]) Aug 9, 2018 9:27 AM
pet insurance (by rick [NJ]) Aug 9, 2018 9:57 AM
pet insurance (by John... [MI]) Aug 9, 2018 11:43 AM
pet insurance (by LindaJ [NY]) Aug 9, 2018 12:42 PM
pet insurance (by CGB [MI]) Aug 9, 2018 12:43 PM
pet insurance (by Hammer [TN]) Aug 9, 2018 12:55 PM
pet insurance (by RentsDue [MA]) Aug 10, 2018 8:13 AM
pet insurance (by Hammer [TN]) Posted on: Aug 9, 2018 6:22 AM Message:
Could this be a legit way around the dangerous dog/emotional support animal issue.
Yes we can take your pitbull/grizzly bear cross emotional support monster. we will need a copy of your $5 Million pet liability policy with (our company name) named as additional insured before we can give you the keys.
1. We are NOT rejecting based on having a support animal.
2. We are putting REASONABLE criteria in place to protect ourselves from THEIR pet choices.
Net result, they go somewhere else. --137.119.xxx.xxx |
pet insurance (by RathdrumGal [ID]) Posted on: Aug 9, 2018 6:32 AM Message:
I believe this would be legal IF you required ALL tenants to have liability insurance. You cannot charge extra for the ESA. --98.146.xxx.xxx |
pet insurance (by Vee [OH]) Posted on: Aug 9, 2018 7:14 AM Message:
Having claimed one of the -free pet- animals automatically has them on next rent cycle damages (recently evicted 1 like this, court did nothing to protect tenant - and shouldn't have), but renters insurance is always a great idea - being named as beneficiary. --76.188.xxx.xx |
pet insurance (by Oregon Woodsmoke [ID]) Posted on: Aug 9, 2018 7:40 AM Message:
I'm guessing that you can just about require anything that is legally required of 100% of your tenants, and you are allowed to require renters insurance. Which would mean that 100% of your tenant would have to have very expensive insurance coverage. If it is high enough to keep out support animals, it's going to keep out the other tenants, too.
Again, a guess, but if you don't allow pets so that the support animals are the only ones hit by a multimillion dollar insurance rider, that isn't going to fly.
If you already allow pets, you can require everyone with a pet to buy the ultra-high insurance coverage. But if you already allow pets, there should be very little objection to service animals.
Weird or dangerous dog emotional support animals, I've always easily found a legal reason to reject them.
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm just guessing, so I suggest you consult with a specialist lawyer before you turn yourself into a test case. I suspect that if the policy looks like it is intended to keep out service and support animals, you could find yourself in trouble.
Dont forget that HUD decided that rejecting for criminal record is racist. They won't have far to jump to conclude that you are discriminating against the disabled. --174.216.xx.xx |
pet insurance (by Robert J [CA]) Posted on: Aug 9, 2018 8:22 AM Message:
My insurance carrier made it clear that if I accept a potential dangerous animal in the rental, my insurance would be cancelled and they would inform the lender, who in turn would call in the loan for not having basic fire/liability insurance.
So a dump person who wants a killer dog doesn't care about anyone but themselves. --47.156.xx.xx |
pet insurance (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Aug 9, 2018 8:53 AM Message:
Hammer: I don't think it would float and here's why: You may be able to require an insurance policy for ALL animals (MAY -- but let's give you that for now). If you did that, I don't think a $5,000,000 policy would be considered "reasonable" for ALL breeds of animals. I think the law would see that as an unreasonable burden on the animal owner to require all dogs to have a $5,000,000 policy.
And you can't just do it for specific breeds -- because now you're telling ESAs that only they have to do it for their specific breed based on what your insurance carrier says. They've already made it clear that that is not allowed. You must consider each dog individually. And to be able to deny based on the breed of an ESA, you have to have written documentation from your insurance company stating that they will raise your insurance significantly (or drop you completely) if you allow THAT SPECIFIC DOG. Not that BREED of dog, but that specific ESA that they have assessed. And, basically, no insurance company is going to do that.
So, I don't think it would float, sorry.
- John...
--24.180.xxx.xxx |
pet insurance (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Aug 9, 2018 8:55 AM Message:
Robert J: As I said above, that is not enough to deny an ESA of a specific breed. If you deny an ESA just because your insurance company told you that they will drop you for a specific breed -- but you don't have written documentation from them about this particular ESA -- then you could probably pretty easily be found in violation of the FHAA.
- John...
--24.180.xxx.xxx |
pet insurance (by Hammer [TN]) Posted on: Aug 9, 2018 9:27 AM Message:
Wow that is really not right.
It is totally reasonable and logical to have different criteria for a teacup yorkie and a large dangerous breed dog. Just because somebody claims ESA, now WE have to try to justify rejection while dodging the G-mint discrimination hammer.....
I am a big fan of freedom WITH responsibility. If somebody wants to have a dangerous pet, goody for them but THEY better be ready to bear the responsibility for care, cleaning, upkeep, damages, insurance etc...
What I was hoping was that this would be a legit option to "declined due to dangerous dog/insurance requirements" and dancing through that mine field.
Instead we could offer 2 options for otherwise acceptable applicants.
1. Declined due to dangerous breed dog/insurance requirements.
OR
2. You might be approved if you sign a waiver/hold harmless PLUS have the $5M. liability insurance to cover your dangerous dog.
IF it went to court, it looks like we went the extra mile to accommodate their extreme choice of pets.
Oh well. --137.119.xxx.xxx |
pet insurance (by rick [NJ]) Posted on: Aug 9, 2018 9:57 AM Message:
Side Note: A federal Fair Housing complaint is not litigated in state court --73.197.xxx.xx |
pet insurance (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Aug 9, 2018 11:43 AM Message:
Hammer: I get that argument, but I can see the reverse too. I've HAD a tenant with a pitbull ESA. It went very well. The dog was very well behaved and actually provided support from what I could see. So, there are cases where the "system works" even though it often does not.
Therefore, I can see the argument against disallowing ESAs based on breed.
Everything you are arguing depends on one key piece: the assumption that it is a "dangerous pet." While that is OFTEN the case, I disagree that it is ALWAYS the case. So I can understand why such restrictions are not allowed. If they were, no LL would take them ever -- even when they were not "dangerous pets."
- John...
--24.180.xxx.xxx |
pet insurance (by LindaJ [NY]) Posted on: Aug 9, 2018 12:42 PM Message:
My insurance policy has a list of unacceptable breeds. I am fine with that, since I really don't want those breeds anyway. Yes, some of the dogs of those breeds are wonderful, but many are not. I know a Vet tech that said she would never have a pit. And she is great with animals. --108.44.xx.xxx |
pet insurance (by CGB [MI]) Posted on: Aug 9, 2018 12:43 PM Message:
I would not "deny" the dangerous breed owner. If I can not deny based on other criteria, congratulations, you are accepted pending receipt of your insurance. Until receipt, your file will be placed in the pending file. If the insurance company will not issue a policy based on the breed of the dog, that's on them. If it is too expensive based on the breed of the dog, that's on them. --50.77.xxx.xxx |
pet insurance (by Hammer [TN]) Posted on: Aug 9, 2018 12:55 PM Message:
I guess my beef is this.
IF we are required to accept pets and "ESA" pets, then pass a law holding LL's Harmeless for any consequences of allowing that pet/ESA.
Its fundamentally wrong to force LL's to accept certain animals, THEN hold us liable if the animal causes harm.
--137.119.xxx.xxx |
pet insurance (by RentsDue [MA]) Posted on: Aug 10, 2018 8:13 AM Message:
I require Liabilry insurance from ALL my tenants. I don't even allow pets. If someone with an ESA applies they will be subject to the same insurance requirements because it is required of everyone. No grounds for discrimination. I feel that covers me two fold:
1.) They have liability insurance.
2.) I am liable if I knew or should have known that their dog was dangerous. If they were able to get liability insurance then the " reasonable man" theory used by courts upholds that a reasonable man would assume that the insurance company would not write them a policy if they had an aggressive dog.
Doesn't mean that I won't be sued in the event of a bite, but lessens any chance of claim for negligence.
Doesn't mean that I will t be sued for discrimination, but nobody is treated differently. --71.10.xxx.xxx |
Reply:
|
|