![\"New](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.animals24-7.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/Picsart_25-12-16_16-18-07-306-e1765930809864.png?ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n ALBANY,\u00a0 New York\u2013\u2013<\/strong>New York state governor Kathy Hochul,\u00a0 on December 12,\u00a0 2025 bucked precedent,\u00a0 including her own,\u00a0 by vetoing a bill to prohibit renters\u2019 insurance policies \u201cfrom discriminating against insureds or potential insureds based upon the harboring or owning of specific dog breeds,\u201d\u00a0 mostly pit bulls.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n At least 10 states since New York and Nevada passed the first such laws in 2022,\u00a0 with Hochul\u2019s strong endorsement, \u00a0have in effect required every homeowner and renter to subsidize the few who keep pit bulls by prohibiting insurance companies from either setting breed-specific premiums,\u00a0 or outright refusing to cover dogs of high-risk breeds,\u00a0 if they insure dogs at all.<\/p>\n (See Best Friends wants you pay more for insurance to subsidize pit bulls<\/a>.)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Such bills,\u00a0 overwhelmingly favored by both pro-pit bull animal advocacy organizations and not opposed by the insurance industry,\u00a0 met surprisingly little opposition from non-pit-bull-owning insureds before December 12,\u00a0 2025.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n Hochul,\u00a0 serving since 2021,\u00a0 readily signed the 2022 New York state law.\u00a0 The matter came before her a second time because the 2022 law,\u00a0 as written,\u00a0 applied only to homeowners\u2019 insurance policies.<\/p>\n The bill Hochul vetoed would have extended the prohibition on breed-specific premiums to renters\u2019 insurance policies.<\/p>\n Hochul,\u00a0 a Democrat running for re-election in November 2026 and heavily favored to win,\u00a0 in her veto statement wrote,\u00a0 \u201cI support the Legislature\u2019s underlying goal of reducing arbitrary barriers to insurance coverage for renters and pet owners.<\/p>\n \u201cHowever, \u00a0I believe this issue warrants additional consideration of more narrowly tailored approaches, \u00a0including those which factor in any potential risks associated with certain breeds.<\/p>\n \u201cTherefore, \u00a0I am constrained to veto this bill.\u00a0 The bill is disapproved.\u201d<\/p>\n Responded Dog Bite Law blogger Kenneth M. Phillips,\u00a0 a personal liability lawyer specializing in dog attacks for more than 30 years,\u00a0 \u201cThe history behind the vetoed bill matters.<\/p>\n \u201cIn 2022, New York enacted a similar law. That law forces insurance companies to sell insurance to homeowners, \u00a0even when the homeowner owns a very risky dog. \u00a0The only limit is that the dog has not been legally declared dangerous.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cLawmakers later proposed SB 364. \u00a0That bill would have expanded the 2022 law. \u00a0It would have covered renters, \u00a0not just homeowners.<\/p>\n <\/a> Kenneth M. Phillips.<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n \u201cI fully support laws that promote insurance coverage for all dogs, \u00a0no matter the breed,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips told ANIMALS 24-7.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cI also support laws that require dog owners to carry insurance,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips said,\u00a0 a category of legislation that currently exists in the U.S. only for dogs declared dangerous due to prior behavior,\u00a0 but having a de facto<\/em> [non-legislated] existence of sorts in the form of corporate rental contracts that require tenants to be insured for liability.<\/p>\n \u201cI support these laws for a clear reason,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips explained.\u00a0 \u201cVictims of dog bites often suffer large losses. \u00a0They need medical care. \u00a0They lose income. \u00a0They need treatment for emotional harm.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen insurance does not cover these losses, victims pay the price. Medicare and Medicaid also pay the price. \u00a0That result harms victims and the public.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n \u201cGovernor Hochul vetoed SB 364,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips pointed out, \u00a0\u201cbut she did not stop renters from buying dog liability insurance. \u00a0That insurance already exists.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are a number of companies that sell canine liability policies,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips continued,.\u00a0 \u201cThose policies pay damages when a dog bites or injures a person. \u00a0They often work better than renter\u2019s insurance. \u00a0They are also more direct.<\/p>\n \u201cStill,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips assessed,\u00a0 \u00a0\u201cthe veto harmed the people of New York. \u00a0Their tax dollars will have to pay the costs of dog attacks that could have been covered by renters insurance. \u00a0So the veto harmed more than renters with risky dogs.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n \u201cWho did it help? \u00a0It helped insurance companies,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips opined.<\/p>\n \u201cBecause of the veto, \u00a0insurers remain free to refuse coverage. \u00a0They can discriminate against renters with risky dogs. \u00a0As a result, more people will rely on taxpayer programs for medical and mental care. \u00a0The\u00a0victims also will carry the burden of disability, \u00a0lost income, \u00a0and disfigurement.<\/p>\n \u201cThe veto was a mistake. \u00a0It benefited only the insurance industry. It failed everyone else,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips believes.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n But landlords,\u00a0 especially in New York City,\u00a0 where the city itself is the biggest landlord and has nominally prohibited keeping pit bulls in public housing since 1937,\u00a0 remain free to refuse uninsured renters.<\/p>\n This can help to keep pit bulls and other high-risk breeds out of buildings that otherwise allow pets.<\/p>\n On the other hand,\u00a0 the New York City Public Housing Authority,\u00a0 unlike many private landlords,\u00a0 does not require renters to be insured.<\/p>\n What about the argument that legislation prohibiting insurance companies from setting breed-specific premiums is analogous to requiring all drivers to subsidize drunk drivers and habitual speeders, \u00a0if insurance companies were not allowed to charge higher premiums to high-risk drivers?<\/p>\n The analogy requires acknowledging that while no driver is licensed to drive drunk or speed,\u00a0 pit bulls are bred, \u00a0in effect, \u00a0to be drunks and speeders,\u00a0 with powerful jaws,\u00a0 low inhibitions against attacking,\u00a0 and hair-trigger reactivity.<\/p>\n Responded Phillips,\u00a0 \u201c<\/strong>Some people argue that requiring insurers to sell coverage for risky dogs at the same price as other dogs forces premiums to rise for all dog owners.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n \u201cThat point is true. Medical and psychological care for a pit bull victim costs about three times more than care for a victim of a less risky dog. \u00a0Insurance that covers pit bulls therefore costs much more.<\/p>\n \u201cThis raises a fair question. \u00a0Is it fair to make all dog owners help pay these higher costs through increased premiums?<\/p>\n \u201cIt may not feel fair,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips argued, \u00a0\u201cbut it is sound policy.<\/p>\n \u201cWe already accept this approach in health insurance,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips pointed out.\u00a0 \u201cLaws like Obamacare require insurers to accept people with preexisting conditions. \u00a0The purpose is to spread the cost of serious illness across the insured population. \u00a0That policy protects sick people. \u00a0It also reduces the strain on Medicare and Medicaid.<\/p>\n \u201cThe same logic applies here,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips said. \u00a0\u201cIt is good policy to make sure the harm caused by risky dogs is paid by private insurance. \u00a0The alternative is worse. \u00a0Without insurance, \u00a0victims suffer. \u00a0Public programs pay more. \u00a0Taxpayers carry the load.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n \u201cSpreading the cost among dog owners is better policy,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips believes, \u00a0\u201cthan forcing victims and the public to absorb the full damage caused by risky dogs.\u201d<\/p>\n While owners of risky dogs can technically be sued for the harm they do,\u00a0 pit bull owners are notoriously often not insured,\u00a0 not homeowners,\u00a0 lack stable employment,\u00a0 and are otherwise difficult to collect court awards from.<\/p>\n Cities and counties have increasingly often paid out,\u00a0 through their insurers, \u00a0six and even seven-figure awards for liability after severe dog attacks,\u00a0 mostly by pit bulls.<\/p>\n High awards for damages against uninsured individual pit bull owners,\u00a0 however, \u00a0have rarely if ever been paid in full.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n Many and perhaps most victims of pit bull attacks find that the pit bull owners lack assets enough to even compensate a lawyer for filing a lawsuit,\u00a0 let alone to pay hospital bills and damages.<\/p>\n The insurance industry mostly either tacitly supports or at least does not oppose bills requiring all dogs to be covered at the same rates because such bills allow insurers to spread the elevated expense of covering dangerous dogs among all insured dog owners.<\/p>\n In theory,\u00a0 spreading the cost of insuring high-risk dogs among all insured dog owners will at least decrease the risk that attack victims will go completely uncompensated,\u00a0 by enabling more owners of high-risk breeds to buy insurance.<\/p>\n In reality,\u00a0 the propensity for risk-taking exhibited by people who acquire high-risk dogs in the first place extends also to acquiring insurance at any rates.<\/p>\nHochul earlier blocked higher homeowners insurance premiums for pit bulls<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nHochul changed position<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\u201cFactor in any potential risks associated with certain breeds\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/a>\u201cThe history behind the vetoed bill matters\u201d<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\u201cI fully support laws that promote insurance coverage for all dogs\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nHochul \u201cdid not stop renters from buying dog liability insurance\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nVeto \u201chelped insurance companies\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nLandlords<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\u201cNot fair,\u00a0 but sound policy\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\u201cSpreading the cost among dog owners is better policy\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nPropensity for risk-taking<\/h2>\n