New York lawmakers want to ban insurers from penalizing renters over the breed of dog they own, extending protections already in place for homeowners in a state that leads the nation in dog bite liability costs.
Assembly Bill 10272, now before the Assembly Insurance Committee, would prohibit insurers from refusing to issue or renew a renters policy, charging higher premiums, or limiting coverage based solely on a policyholder's dog breed.
A second measure, Assembly Bill 10279, would bar insurers across all lines from taking adverse action against applicants whose marital status reflects the death of a spouse.
The dog breed insurance ban for renters would build on protections New York first introduced for homeowners in 2021. That year, Governor Kathy Hochul signed Section 3421 into the state's Insurance Law, prohibiting breed-based underwriting in homeowners policies.
The American Kennel Club noted at the time that insurers could still act against individually designated dangerous dogs – but not on the basis of breed alone.
A loophole soon emerged. While the 2021 law covered underwriting, it did not address coverage limitations. Some carriers responded by restricting animal liability coverage within policies rather than denying them outright. The state legislature amended Section 3421 in late 2022, with the changes taking effect in March 2023, to close that gap.
AB 10272 would now extend the same framework to renters insurance – a category the original law did not cover.
The push comes against a backdrop of rising dog bite liability nationally. Research from the Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I) and State Farm shows payouts reached $1.57 billion in 2024, with the number of claims jumping 18.9% year over year to 22,658. The average cost per claim climbed 18.3% to $69,272.
New York sits at the top of that table. Triple-I and State Farm data puts the state's average cost per claim at $110,488 in 2024 – roughly 60% above the national average. Over the past decade, average dog bite liability costs nationwide have surged 86.1%, driven by rising medical expenses and larger settlements.
The second bill takes a different tack. AB 10279 would prevent insurers from canceling a policy, refusing coverage, or altering terms because a policyholder has been widowed. Its sponsors describe the measure as addressing discrimination that can follow the death of a spouse.
Both bills remain with the Assembly Insurance Committee. No hearing dates have been announced.
