(Beth Clifton collage)

Hochul earlier blocked higher homeowners insurance premiums for pit bulls

ALBANY,  New York––New York state governor Kathy Hochul,  on December 12,  2025 bucked precedent,  including her own,  by vetoing a bill to prohibit renters’ insurance policies “from discriminating against insureds or potential insureds based upon the harboring or owning of specific dog breeds,”  mostly pit bulls.

(Beth Clifton collage)

Hochul changed position

At least 10 states since New York and Nevada passed the first such laws in 2022,  with Hochul’s strong endorsement,  have 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,  or outright refusing to cover dogs of high-risk breeds,  if they insure dogs at all.

(See Best Friends wants you pay more for insurance to subsidize pit bulls.)

Such bills,  overwhelmingly favored by both pro-pit bull animal advocacy organizations and not opposed by the insurance industry,  met surprisingly little opposition from non-pit-bull-owning insureds before December 12,  2025.

(Beth Clifton collage)

“Factor in any potential risks associated with certain breeds”

Hochul,  serving since 2021,  readily signed the 2022 New York state law.  The matter came before her a second time because the 2022 law,  as written,  applied only to homeowners’ insurance policies.

The bill Hochul vetoed would have extended the prohibition on breed-specific premiums to renters’ insurance policies.

Hochul,  a Democrat running for re-election in November 2026 and heavily favored to win,  in her veto statement wrote,  “I support the Legislature’s underlying goal of reducing arbitrary barriers to insurance coverage for renters and pet owners.

“However,  I believe this issue warrants additional consideration of more narrowly tailored approaches,  including those which factor in any potential risks associated with certain breeds.

“Therefore,  I am constrained to veto this bill.  The bill is disapproved.”

“The history behind the vetoed bill matters”

Responded Dog Bite Law blogger Kenneth M. Phillips,  a personal liability lawyer specializing in dog attacks for more than 30 years,  “The history behind the vetoed bill matters.

“In 2022, New York enacted a similar law. That law forces insurance companies to sell insurance to homeowners,  even when the homeowner owns a very risky dog.  The only limit is that the dog has not been legally declared dangerous.”

“Lawmakers later proposed SB 364.  That bill would have expanded the 2022 law.  It would have covered renters,  not just homeowners.

Kenneth M. Phillips.

“I fully support laws that promote insurance coverage for all dogs”

“I fully support laws that promote insurance coverage for all dogs,  no matter the breed,”  Phillips told ANIMALS 24-7.

“I also support laws that require dog owners to carry insurance,”  Phillips said,  a category of legislation that currently exists in the U.S. only for dogs declared dangerous due to prior behavior,  but having a de facto [non-legislated] existence of sorts in the form of corporate rental contracts that require tenants to be insured for liability.

“I support these laws for a clear reason,”  Phillips explained.  “Victims of dog bites often suffer large losses.  They need medical care.  They lose income.  They need treatment for emotional harm.

“When insurance does not cover these losses, victims pay the price. Medicare and Medicaid also pay the price.  That result harms victims and the public.

(Beth Clifton collage)

Hochul “did not stop renters from buying dog liability insurance”

“Governor Hochul vetoed SB 364,”  Phillips pointed out,  “but she did not stop renters from buying dog liability insurance.  That insurance already exists.

“There are a number of companies that sell canine liability policies,”  Phillips continued,.  “Those policies pay damages when a dog bites or injures a person.  They often work better than renter’s insurance.  They are also more direct.

“Still,”  Phillips assessed,   “the veto harmed the people of New York.  Their tax dollars will have to pay the costs of dog attacks that could have been covered by renters insurance.  So the veto harmed more than renters with risky dogs.

(Beth Clifton collage)

Veto “helped insurance companies”

“Who did it help?  It helped insurance companies,”  Phillips opined.

“Because of the veto,  insurers remain free to refuse coverage.  They can discriminate against renters with risky dogs.  As a result, more people will rely on taxpayer programs for medical and mental care.  The victims also will carry the burden of disability,  lost income,  and disfigurement.

“The veto was a mistake.  It benefited only the insurance industry. It failed everyone else,”  Phillips believes.

(Beth Clifton collage)

Landlords

But landlords,  especially in New York City,  where the city itself is the biggest landlord and has nominally prohibited keeping pit bulls in public housing since 1937,  remain free to refuse uninsured renters.

This can help to keep pit bulls and other high-risk breeds out of buildings that otherwise allow pets.

On the other hand,  the New York City Public Housing Authority,  unlike many private landlords,  does not require renters to be insured.

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,  if insurance companies were not allowed to charge higher premiums to high-risk drivers?

The analogy requires acknowledging that while no driver is licensed to drive drunk or speed,  pit bulls are bred,  in effect,  to be drunks and speeders,  with powerful jaws,  low inhibitions against attacking,  and hair-trigger reactivity.

Responded Phillips,  “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.

(Beth Clifton collage)

“Not fair,  but sound policy”

“That 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.  Insurance that covers pit bulls therefore costs much more.

“This raises a fair question.  Is it fair to make all dog owners help pay these higher costs through increased premiums?

“It may not feel fair,”  Phillips argued,  “but it is sound policy.

“We already accept this approach in health insurance,”  Phillips pointed out.  “Laws like Obamacare require insurers to accept people with preexisting conditions.  The purpose is to spread the cost of serious illness across the insured population.  That policy protects sick people.  It also reduces the strain on Medicare and Medicaid.

“The same logic applies here,”  Phillips said.  “It is good policy to make sure the harm caused by risky dogs is paid by private insurance.  The alternative is worse.  Without insurance,  victims suffer.  Public programs pay more.  Taxpayers carry the load.

(Beth Clifton collage)

“Spreading the cost among dog owners is better policy”

“Spreading the cost among dog owners is better policy,”  Phillips believes,  “than forcing victims and the public to absorb the full damage caused by risky dogs.”

While owners of risky dogs can technically be sued for the harm they do,  pit bull owners are notoriously often not insured,  not homeowners,  lack stable employment,  and are otherwise difficult to collect court awards from.

Cities and counties have increasingly often paid out,  through their insurers,  six and even seven-figure awards for liability after severe dog attacks,  mostly by pit bulls.

High awards for damages against uninsured individual pit bull owners,  however,  have rarely if ever been paid in full.

(Beth Clifton collage)

Propensity for risk-taking

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,  let alone to pay hospital bills and damages.

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.

In theory,  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,  by enabling more owners of high-risk breeds to buy insurance.

In reality,  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.

(Beth Clifton collage)

Insurance payouts quadruple in just six years

Human fatalities caused by pit bulls and other bully breeds meanwhile have risen from an average of fewer than one per year,  1930-1960,  to an average of more than 55 per year,  2021-2025,  while the percentage of dog attack deaths inflicted by bully breeds has never dipped below two-thirds over any given five-year interval.

The average 2024 insurance payout to victim attacked by a dog who was insured was $69,272, according to the Insurance Information Institute.

This was up from $16,600 in 2008 and––after adjustment for inflation––just $644 in 1960.

Beth & Merritt Clifton.
(Daniel Leventhal photo)

The increase in payouts to dog attack victims reflects inflation much less than the escalating frequency of severely disfiguring,  disabling,  and fatal dog attack injuries,  more than 70% of which have been inflicted by pit bulls over the 43 years since ANIMALS 24-7 began tracking the data in 1982.

No older or more comprehensive breed-specific data set on disfiguring,  disabling,  and fatal dog attack injuries exists.

Please donate to support our work: 

More related posts: