Rottweilers, Shepherds, and Pitbulls, Oh My!

The subject of today’s post was inspired by a recent class on accommodating the needs of residents with disabilities. As professional property managers, we know the Federal Fair Housing Act (FFHA) requires us to make reasonable accommodations for renters with physical or mental disabilities. Often times, these requests revolve around assistance animals (note: the term “assistance animal” is synonymous with “companion animal,” “service animal,” “therapy animal,” etc.)  It is widely known within the property management industry that accommodating such requests is generally considered “reasonable,” under FFHA.

What happens when the animal is a “dangerous breed” of dog?

Stories relating to incidents of deadly animal attacks on humans make national news on a fairly regular basis. As many of us know, some insurance companies keep lists of dog breeds they consider “dangerous,” and will refuse to write policies of insurance on homes that keep these breeds as pets. Some of these companies base that decision on a decades-old report by the Centers for Disease Control entitled, “Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998.”  Among the breeds listed on the report are Pitbulls, which accounted for the highest number of deaths during the time studied. Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Huskies, and Malamutes were all included in the study. In fact, the report lists well over a dozen purebred and crossbred dogs involved in dog bit-related fatalities.

What if the owner’s insurance policy prohibits the animal?

A dilemma arises for the property manager when a resident with a disability asks to keep an assistance animal that is banned by the property owner’s insurance policy. Can the manager refuse to accommodate the request, even if the resident has sufficiently documented his need for the animal? In my opinion, the property manager would do so at her own peril. Not only is it ill-advised for the manager to summarily deny the request, I believe it would be equally risky for the manager to require the resident to obtain a separate policy of insurance on the animal.

HUD’s office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity has made it pretty clear to housing providers that these types of actions will likely be frowned upon. In its 2004 Joint Statement with the Department of Justice,  HUD states,

“Housing providers may not require persons with disabilities to pay extra fees or deposits as a condition of receiving a reasonable accommodation.”

The Statement then cites an example of a reasonable accommodation that may pose a liability risk for the landlord – use of a motorized scooter inside a multi-tenant building. In this example, HUD and DOJ state,

“…the facility may not condition [this accommodation] on a requirement that he obtain liability insurance…”

What should the property manager do?

Recognizing this dilemma, HUD published an internal memorandum in 2006 that discusses insurance policy restrictions.  In part, the memorandum states,

“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…, HUD will find that this imposes an undue financial and administrative burden on the housing provider.”

By FFHA’s definition, a request is not reasonable if it poses such a burden on a housing provider.

Not so fast…

However, the memo continues,

“…the investigator must substantiate the housing provider’s claim regarding the potential loss of or adverse change to the insurance coverage, by verifying such a claim with the insurance company directly and considering whether comparable insurance, without the restriction, is available in the market.”

I read this sentence to say that the property owner will likely be required to attempt to find another insurer – one that does not prohibit the breed of dog in question.

According to a national insurance underwriter website, both State Farm and Allstate have changed their approach to underwriting in this particular area of risk. Rather than inquiring about dog breeds during the underwriting process, these companies will only inquire about the behavioral qualities and past incidents of aggressive behavior of the animals in residence. If either of those companies insure properties in your area, it might behoove your owner/client to check on the availability of coverage before you deny an accommodation request for a “dangerous breed” of animal.

Been there?

Please share your experiences on this and related property management issues by leaving a comment on this post. Thanks for reading!