San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

Maybe worse than being sued is not being able to afford landlord insurance. My agent told me not to rent to people with certain kinds of dog breeds, but said also that most dogs will bite even the small ones, especially when provoked. I think if you continue to allow dogs, they should be kept in back or where no one passing by can attract them. Just my two cents.

Welcome to california...Where people make money the old fashion way...Sueing...

I really hope you have a nice big insurance policy with umbrella coverage.Because if you skimped on insurance and bought the lowest liability coverage you could find and you do get sued, I hope your insurance co doesn't just decide to pay out the liability amount they are responsible for and then tell the plantiff to go after you directly for the remainder amount.

Happened to my parents, which some guy jammed a finger on something and they sued for $1million. Insurance company liability was like $100k, so the insurance company was about ready to cut a check for $100k and tell the plantiff to sue my parents directly for the $900k and tell my parents they are on their own in court. Fortunately upon investigation, the insurance co didn't even think he should get more than $10k, so they ended up paying for the lawyer to settle out of court for $20k.

This brings me to my next question. When you have nothing to lose, rentals are great things. When one has significant money to lose, do people weigh the benefit of the incremental increase in income from a rental property versus the additional liability risk one is now exposed to? Just curious.

They put their assets in a trust or some other type of legal protection for just those instances. This sounds like a good question for the attorneys.

I've never handled a dog bite case. I just googled it and came up with what appears to have some info you should read:

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/civil.htm

Based on the facts you've given you may have a valid defense.

I worry about this too. I have two rental units. Tenants in one unit do have dogs, and I wonder if I should ever rent to dog owners again. I have a $3M umbrella policy in addition to the regular homeowner & fire insurance policies.

Lately I've been reading up on real estate LLCs. In theory an LLC looks like an ideal liability limitation vehicle, it's just really unfortunate that the California limited liability tax is $800/yr and applies to all corporations and LLCs.

All dogs should be on special rider policies like expensive jewelry, etc. Most dogs will bite so it is a foreseeable event (strict definition of insurance) which should be exluded from coverage.
A relative had several dogs and after 6 years one of the dogs bit their son and son ended up in hospital with minor injury. Know someone whose small dog bit a kid right in front of him. Insurance company saw emergency room picture and immmediately wrote check for some crazy figure like 50K for minor scar.

So most insurance companies only ban certain breeds while they cap water claims at super low 5K(AAA). Water leak is generally not a foreseeable event, and they cap at ridiculous 5K??? Only explanation is that all insurance execs are big dogs owners?

Purely business, why rent to pet owners? Is it that difficult to find decent tenants?

This link leads me to believe that you need not worry in this incident; however, now that you know this dog bites, if an incident happens again you might be in trouble.

The "victim" also might be a scam artist, do keep that in mind. They might just be going for a quick settlement. Yet the "law enforcement" you mentioned seems to agree that changes need to be made to the property. This, with the knowledge that a biting dog is housed there (scienter), may make you responsible for future incidents.

I'd say you have three choices: evict the tenant, make the tenant get rid of the dog, or improve the fence. You should contact the "law enforcement" people you mentioned for more info as well. Tell them you want to comply.

I rent to pet owners because I am a pet owner myself, and I live in a rental. (yes, it is not logical, but I live in rental and own a rental...) I have owned the house since 2001, and have had a variety of tenants, some with dogs, and some without. The worst tenants had no dogs. On the lease, it was only 2 adults and a baby moving in, but as it turned out, they moved family members in, had domestic violence, paid the rent late, and were very damaging to the house.

If you don't have a lot of money, and have a dog, your choices are to live in a nice small condo/apartment in a desireable area, walk your dog every day, deal with neighbors and adjoining walls, OR live in a less desireable neighborhood which gives you more space, washer/dryer, yard, etc.

In this particular case, the tenant is fantastic. She keeps clean, keeps up the property, does not have chaos by moving in other family members, etc. and pays the rent on time. And, I like her.

I thought typically you can't even put a fence higher than 42" in the front (legally). I know you see people doing it all the time but I believe I've at least checked in Carlsbad and the front fence is limited to 42".

It would seem to me that now that there has been an incident and it is known that the dog bites, that the dog should be kept inside, or out back, or in front only under direct supervision of the owner. I'm not saying it's fair, but this would seem like the most logical next step to take to cover yourself.