By Judy Bellack, Chief Consultant, Judith Lawrence Associates
For years, the rental housing industry has pointed to insurance as the immovable object standing in the way of more pet-inclusive housing.
“No aggressive breeds.”
“Weight limits required by insurance.”
“Our carrier won’t allow it.”
But what if the reality is more nuanced than that?
A recent study conducted by Pet-Inclusive Housing Initiative (PIHI), Pets, Properties, and Policies: Understanding Insurance Barriers to Pet-Inclusive Housing, offers one of the clearest looks yet into how insurance carriers actually think about pets in rental housing. And perhaps more importantly, where flexibility and opportunity for change may exist.
The findings reveal something important: Insurance companies are influencing pet policies. But housing providers have far more influence over insurers than many realize.
The Insurance Industry Isn’t Focused on “Bad Dogs.” It’s Focused on Liability.
PIHI’s qualitative research was conducted by an independent research agency, New Leafe Research. The study included in-depth interviews with 14 insurance carriers and 4 brokers who work directly with multifamily housing providers. Across those conversations, one theme came through repeatedly: This is less about frequency of incidents, and more about severity of claims.
According to participants, dog-related incidents are relatively uncommon. But when serious claims occur, especially involving children, they can result in massive long-tail liability exposure, high jury awards, and expensive litigation.
In other words, insurers are reacting to catastrophic financial risk — not necessarily day-to-day operational realities at apartment communities.
And because carriers lack standardized, behavior-based tools they trust, many default to broad underwriting shortcuts:
- Breed restrictions
- Weight limits
- Pet quantity caps
- Blanket exclusions
The report refers to these current underwriting methods as “blunt tools,” driven more by legal uncertainty and data gaps than nuanced risk evaluation.
That distinction matters.
Because if restrictions are rooted in outdated proxies rather than precise actuarial modeling, then the industry has an opportunity — and arguably a responsibility — to modernize.
The Quiet Part Out Loud: Large Operators Already Negotiate Exceptions
One of the more revealing findings in the report is that flexibility already exists.
According to interview participants, exceptions are more common for:
- Large landlords
- Long-standing insurance relationships
- Operators with stronger risk-management practices
- Regional or relationship-based carriers
That means insurance requirements are not always universally fixed mandates handed down from above.
They are often negotiated business decisions.
And that should fundamentally change the conversation.
Too often, restrictive pet policies are presented to renters as though they are immutable laws of nature: “Our insurance requires this.”
But PIHI’s research suggests the reality is frequently: “This is the version of coverage we accepted.”
That may sound subtle, but it’s a critical distinction.
Because multifamily owners and operators are not passive participants in this system. They are powerful customers in a massive insurance marketplace. Their portfolios, premiums, and renewals carry influence. They have a voice, and that voice carries power.
As renter expectations evolve — and legislative scrutiny intensifies — that influence matters more than ever.
The Actuarial Question the Industry Keeps Avoiding
Perhaps the biggest elephant in the room is this: Is there actually strong actuarial evidence proving breed restrictions meaningfully reduce risk?
The insurance industry often cites “historical loss data” and internal claims experience to justify breed-based underwriting. Yet the broader scientific and veterinary communities have long challenged the reliability of breed-specific assumptions as predictors of aggression.
Even within the PIHI study, carriers acknowledged they lack widely trusted alternatives and standardized data models.
That’s important because it reframes the issue.
Breed restrictions may not exist because they are the best or most accurate risk-assessment tool. They may exist because they are the easiest, most familiar, and most legally defensible tool available in a highly litigious environment.
Those are not the same thing.
And frankly, that should concern everyone:
- Housing providers trying to balance inclusion and risk
- Policymakers pursuing fair housing goals
- Insurers attempting to modernize underwriting
- Renters facing arbitrary barriers based on their dog’s appearance
For housing providers seeking to minimize risk, breed restrictions are widely recognized by most reputable animal experts as an arbitrary methodology. In other words, restrictions = a false sense of security.
Change Is Coming – With or Without Industry Leadership
The report also highlights something the multifamily industry should pay close attention to: Insurance carriers themselves acknowledge the market and legal landscape is shifting toward greater pet inclusivity.
Several participants expressed perspectives along the lines of this one: “We will do what the market or the law requires — our job is to price the risk accurately.”
That should be viewed as both a warning and an opportunity.
Across the country, lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing pet-related restrictions, breed bans, and fee structures. Public pressure around housing equity and pet inclusion continues to grow. And renters are becoming less willing to accept vague or inconsistent pet policies.
The question is no longer whether change is coming.
The question is whether the rental housing industry wants a seat at the table shaping smarter solutions — or whether it waits until those solutions are legislated for them.
What Leadership Could Look Like
The good news? The PIHI report makes clear that insurers are not universally opposed to evolution.
In fact, many expressed interest in:
- Behavior-based assessment models
- Better pet-risk data
- Pet screening innovations
- Stronger liability frameworks
- Cross-sector partnerships
That creates an opening for multifamily owners and operators to lead.
Not by eliminating risk management.
Not by pretending liability concerns don’t exist.
But by helping build more accurate, evidence-based approaches that move beyond broad categorical exclusions.
That could include:
- Stronger renter education and pet-responsibility programs
- Clear behavioral expectations in lease language
- Renters insurance requirements
- Better incident tracking and data collection
- Pilot programs utilizing behavior-based screening tools
- Collaborative advocacy with insurers and policymakers
Most importantly, it means using the industry’s collective voice to push for modernization instead of quietly accepting the status quo.
The Bottom Line
For years, the narrative has been: “Insurance won’t let us.”
But PIHI’s research suggests the more honest answer may be: “The system hasn’t evolved yet.”
And systems evolve when influential stakeholders decide they should.
The multifamily industry has an opportunity right now to help shape a future that is more data-driven, more equitable, and more aligned with how millions of Americans actually live — with pets as family members, not liabilities to avoid.
The question is whether housing providers will help lead that conversation… or wait until someone else does.