Insurance objections
For landlords
The most commonly raised defence in this area and the least commonly evidenced one.
The argument
Your policy excludes certain breeds, or excludes animal liability, and accommodating the animal would leave you uninsured or cost more. That is an undue financial burden argument. It is a real argument and it is one you have to prove rather than assert.
What it requires
- Evidence that your current policy actually excludes it. Read the wording rather than relying on what a broker said on the phone.
- Evidence that alternative cover is genuinely unavailable, not merely that you have not looked.
- What the alternative would cost, weighed against your resources rather than against the tenant.
- That you considered whether another accommodation would address the concern.
A clause in a policy document is where this argument begins. Several courts have been unimpressed by landlords who refused on insurance grounds without having obtained a single alternative quote, and the fee-shifting provision means losing that argument is expensive.
What usually solves it
Asking the tenant to carry renters insurance with animal liability cover, which is not expensive and which specialist insurers write for excluded breeds. Where you require it of all tenants it is straightforwardly enforceable. Where you require it only of accommodated tenants at their cost, you are imposing a charge for the accommodation, which is the weaker position.
Talk to your broker before you refuse
Many carriers have moved away from blanket breed exclusions, and some expressly carve out assistance animals. A ten minute conversation frequently removes the objection entirely, and it is a considerably cheaper ten minutes than the alternative.
Common questions
- My carrier says they will not cover it. Is that enough?
- It is the start. Get it in writing, get a quote for alternative cover, and record that you looked. That is what the argument needs.