Six states, and the one almost nobody names
The reform is real, and it is narrower than the coverage of it suggests. Five of the six states prohibit an adverse underwriting decision made solely because of a dog's breed. Colorado's does not use the word at all.
| State | Citation | In force from | How the prohibition is drafted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nevada | NRS 687B.383 | 1 January 2022 | An insurer “shall not: (a) Refuse to issue; (b) Cancel; (c) Refuse to renew; or (d) Increase a premium or rate for, a policy of insurance based solely on the specific breed or mixture of breeds of a dog that is harbored or owned on an applicable property” |
| New York | Ins. Law § 3421 | Ch. 545 of 2021, signed 30 October 2021, effective “on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law” — late January 2022 | “based solely upon harboring or owning any dog of a specific breed or mixture of breeds” — and expressly reaches “exclude, limit, restrict, or reduce coverage” |
| Colorado (2025 amendment) | HB25-1207, eff. 6 Aug 2025 | In force since August 2025 — amends § 10-4-110.8(16)(a) | Widened the policy types covered: adds a commercial policy for multifamily units and a policy covering the contents of a residence occupied by an owner or renter, and extends the dog's location to a “multifamily unit, or structure used as a residence” |
| Arizona | A.R.S. § 20-1510 (Laws 2022 ch. 243) | Applies to policies issued “from and after June 30, 2023” — an applicability clause, not an effective date | Breed may not be “the sole factor”. “Breed” is defined as the actual or perceived breed or mixture of breeds |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. § 65A.303 | 1 August 2023, per the enacting bill's own effective-date line | “based solely on the fact that the homeowner harbors or owns one dog of a specific breed or mixture of breeds” |
| Illinois | 215 ILCS 5/143.10e | 9 December 2023, per the statute's own source line (P.A. 103-11) | “based solely upon harboring or owning any dog of a specific breed or mixture of breeds” — also reaches exclusions |
| Colorado | C.R.S. § 10-4-110.8(16) | 1 January 2024 | “shall not refuse to issue, cancel, refuse to renew, or increase a premium or rate… based on the breed or mixture of breeds of a dog that is kept at the dwelling, multifamily unit, or structure used as a residence.” — no ‘solely’, and as amended by HB25-1207 from 6 Aug 2025 |
If you have read anything else on this subject you have probably seen two states named. That is what the NAIC's own breed-specific legislation topic page lists, and it is what most articles are working from. The page carries a Last Updated stamp of 9/24/2025 — by which date every statute in the table above was already in force. It is not that the law moved after the reference was written. The reference is behind, and the pages built on it inherit that.
Pennsylvania, reported as unresolved. 3 P.S. § 459-507-A(d) reads: “No liability policy or surety bond issued pursuant to this act or any other act may prohibit coverage from any specific breed of dog.” It sits in the Dog Law's dangerous-dog article rather than the Insurance Code, and we have not found a departmental interpretation applying it to ordinary homeowners policies. We are not counting it as a seventh state and we are not leaving it out; if you are in Pennsylvania it is worth raising with the department.
| What the notice states as the reason | In a “solely” state | In Colorado |
|---|---|---|
| “Breed of dog at the residence”, and nothing else | Prohibited. This is the case the statutes were drafted for, and it is the notice you want if you intend to complain | Prohibited |
| “Breed of dog; roof age 19 years” | Arguably outside the prohibition on the face of the text, because breed is no longer the sole ground stated | The subsection has no “solely”, so the same escape is not available on the text |
| “Underwriting criteria”, no reason given | Unresolvable from the notice. Your lever is your state's rule on what a non-renewal notice must disclose, not the breed statute | Same |
| “Liability exclusion for the dog; policy otherwise unchanged” | New York and Illinois reach exclusions. Nevada, Arizona and Minnesota do not mention them | Not mentioned in the subsection |
The word that decides most of these cases
Read your notice, then read the statute again. Five of these six laws prohibit acting solely on breed. An insurer that states breed and a nineteen-year-old roof has, on the face of the text, not acted solely on breed.
| What the notice states as the reason | In a “solely” state | In Colorado |
|---|---|---|
| “Breed of dog at the residence”, and nothing else | Prohibited. This is the case the statutes were drafted for, and it is the notice you want if you intend to complain | Prohibited |
| “Breed of dog; roof age 19 years” | Arguably outside the prohibition on the face of the text, because breed is no longer the sole ground stated | The subsection has no “solely”, so the same escape is not available on the text |
| “Underwriting criteria”, no reason given | Unresolvable from the notice. Your lever is your state's rule on what a non-renewal notice must disclose, not the breed statute | Same |
| “Liability exclusion for the dog; policy otherwise unchanged” | New York and Illinois reach exclusions. Nevada, Arizona and Minnesota do not mention them | Not mentioned in the subsection |
This is not a loophole anyone is concealing. It is how the statutes were drafted, and it is why the useful question is never “is breed discrimination legal in my state” but “what does my notice say, word for word”. If the notice gives a bare “underwriting criteria” and no reason at all, your lever is usually not the breed statute — it is your state's ordinary rule about what a non-renewal notice has to disclose, which we cover on the non-renewal page.
Colorado is worth understanding even if you do not live there, because it shows what the drafters could have written. C.R.S. § 10-4-110.8(16)(a) says an insurer “shall not refuse to issue, cancel, refuse to renew, or increase a premium or rate… based on the breed or mixture of breeds of a dog that is kept at the dwelling, multifamily unit, or structure used as a residence.” No “solely”.
And it got wider in August 2025. HB25-1207 amended that subsection with effect from 6 August 2025 to add commercial policies for multifamily units and policies covering the contents of a residence occupied by an owner or renter. Colorado already covered dwelling fire policies, which the other five do not mention; it now reaches renters and multifamily buildings as well, which makes it comfortably the widest of the six. Note the date: sources quoting the 2023 text describe a narrower rule than the one now in force.
Dropped, denied, or holding a notice you do not understand? Call us. We will read the letter with you, tell you which clock you are on and what your state requires your insurer to do — then put you in touch with a licensed agent who can quote you and write the policy.
Call (866) 754-7910Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm ET (6am to 2pm PT). We are not an insurance agency and we do not sell policies. Call and we will help you make sense of what you have been sent — then put you in touch with a licensed agent — the one person who can actually quote you and write a policy. We hold no insurance license, so we cannot quote you, recommend an insurer, or advise you on your own policy.What the statutes still leave open
Five of the six carry an exception subsection, and they are broadly similar: a dog formally determined dangerous under the state's own animal-control law falls outside the protection, and most states also preserve action on sound underwriting and actuarial principles. Arizona is the exception to the exceptions — § 20-1510 has a prohibition subsection and a definitions subsection and nothing else. It never mentions dangerous dogs.
| State | Uses “solely” | Restricts asking the breed | Reaches exclusions | Dangerous-dog exception |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nevada | Yes | Yes — may ask only whether the dog is known to be dangerous or vicious | No | Yes — dangerous or vicious status under NRS 202.500 and sound underwriting and actuarial principles. One conjunctive exception, not two |
| New York | Yes | No | Yes | Yes — dangerous-dog designation under Ag. & Mkts. § 123, then “based on sound underwriting and actuarial principles”. The statute joins the two limbs with a comma and neither ‘and’ nor ‘or’; we read that as conjunctive, so the actuarial limb is not a separate route — our reading, not the statute's word |
| Arizona | “sole factor” | No. The statute reaches “questionnaires, surveys or other means of gathering information” — but only under “the breed of a dog may not be the sole factor considered or used for”. It forbids breed being the only thing driving the questionnaire, not the asking | No | None. The statute has no exception subsection and never mentions dangerous dogs |
| Minnesota | Yes | No | No | Yes, § 347.50, or sound underwriting and actuarial principles, or bite history. The one drafted disjunctively — here the actuarial limb genuinely is a separate route |
| Illinois | Yes | No | Yes | Yes, Animal Control Act — but the actuarial exception is tied to experience with that individual dog |
| Colorado | No | Yes — “may not ask or otherwise inquire” except as to dangerous status | No | Yes — sound underwriting and actuarial principles on the basis that the particular dog is known to be or has been declared dangerous. Conjunctive |
Two columns there matter more than the headline. The first is whether the statute reaches exclusions. New York's section says an insurer shall not “refuse to issue or renew, cancel, or charge or impose an increased premium or rate… or exclude, limit, restrict, or reduce coverage”. Illinois uses the same construction. The other five address issuing, cancelling and renewing — except Arizona, which is drafted around “underwriting or actuarial processes” rather than those acts. Nevada and Colorado also reach premium and rate, and Minnesota does not. They do not mention exclusions. On the face of those texts an insurer in Nevada, Arizona, Minnesota or Colorado may be able to write the policy and exclude the dog. We have found no case or departmental bulletin construing the point in any of the four, and we are not going to resolve it for you — we are telling you the texts differ, because the difference is the whole of what you would be arguing about.
The second is who may ask. Nevada permits an insurer to ask only whether the dog is known to be dangerous or vicious. Colorado's (16)(c) says an insurer “may not ask or otherwise inquire about the specific breed or mixture of breeds” except as to dangerous status. Arizona is often listed as a third. It is not. Its statute does reach “questionnaires, surveys or other means of gathering information” — but under the governing words “The breed of a dog may not be the sole factor considered or used for”. That forbids breed being the only thing driving the questionnaire; it does not forbid the question. In Arizona, New York, Minnesota and Illinois the insurer may still ask; the constraint is on what it does with your answer.
Which policies are covered differs too. Nevada's definition expressly includes umbrella policies. Arizona's defines “policy of insurance” as “a homeowner's or renter's policy of insurance” and stops there — so umbrella, excess and commercial policies sit outside it by silence. An umbrella is the layer a serious dog-bite claim is most likely to reach, so the same reform lands differently in the two states.
About those “banned breeds” lists
You have probably already found one. There are dozens, they mostly agree, and that agreement is not evidence — it is what happens when compilations cite compilations.
| Source | Publishes a breed list? | What that tells you |
|---|---|---|
| State insurance departments | No. We found none | There is no authoritative roster to appeal to. The statutes regulate the criterion, not the list |
| The NAIC | No. Its breed-specific-legislation topic page names states, not breeds | And it names two of the six. The page's own stamp reads Last Updated 9/24/2025 — after every statute in the table above was already in force |
| Individual carriers | Sometimes, in agent-facing underwriting guidelines | The only tier where a list carries any authority — and it binds one carrier, not the market |
| Comparison and lead-generation sites | Constantly | These are compilations, and they cite each other. Nearly every “banned breeds” list you will find is one of these |
We went looking for a list with authority behind it. No state insurance department publishes one. What we did find is a carrier's own agent-facing underwriting guideline — Homeowners of America Insurance Company's Texas homeowners guideline — and the interesting thing about it is not which breeds it names. It is the drafting. The list is introduced with “Prohibited breeds of dogs include but are not limited to”. Two further bullets do the work that an open list implies. One defines the term “Pit Bull Dog” to take in “any dog which has the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of the breeds of” four named terriers and pit-bull types — that clause is a definition of one term and reaches only those breeds, not the whole prohibited list. The bullet that reaches everything is the next one: “Any dog that is a hybrid or mix of a prohibited breed, or which has the appearance or characteristics of a prohibited breed”.
Read that twice, because it is the practical answer to the question most people actually arrive with. A mixed-breed dog with no papers can be declined on how it looks, and there is nothing to appeal to, because there is no closed list to be outside of. That one document explains more about how these decisions get made than any breed roster will — and it is one carrier in one state, which is exactly how we are presenting it.
It also shows why a DNA test is a weaker card than people expect: a guideline written around appearance does not obviously care what the test says. Arizona is the one state that has legislated against this directly — its statute defines “breed” as the “actual or perceived breed or mixture of breeds of a dog”, which reaches a decision made on appearance rather than ancestry.
If you are holding a notice right now
The order below is deliberate. The slowest step with the best outcome is not the first step, because the calendar does not wait for the regulator.
| # | Do this | Why it comes here |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Read the notice and write down the exact stated reason | Everything below turns on whether breed is stated, and whether it is stated alone. A remembered reason is not evidence; the paper is |
| 2 | Diary the date the non-renewal takes effect | The deadline runs whether or not the reason is lawful. A complaint that is right on the law and late on the calendar leaves you uninsured |
| 3 | Ask the insurer, in writing, whether a liability exclusion for the dog is available instead | Cheaper and faster than a dispute. In New York and Illinois the statutes reach exclusions too, so ask what the alternative on offer actually is. Do not assume it is on the table. The one carrier guideline we can read says “Some Animals May Be Accepted With An Animal Exclusion Endorsement” and then closes it: “Pit Bulls, Rottweilers Or Dogs With A Bite History Will Not Be Accepted Under Any Circumstances.” If that is your dog, treat steps 4 and 5 as the real route and start them now |
| 4 | If breed is the stated reason and you are in one of the six states, file with your state insurance department | Free, and it is the body that can act on the statute. It is not fast — which is why it is step 4 and not step 1 |
| 5 | Line up replacement coverage in parallel, and bind it | A quote is an indication. A bound policy is coverage in force. Do not let the current policy lapse while you argue about it |
The most common avoidable mistake here is treating the complaint as the plan. A state insurance department complaint is free, and it is the right thing to file when a notice states breed as the reason in a state that prohibits exactly that. It is also not fast, and it does not keep your house insured meanwhile. Run it alongside the search, never instead of it.
The second is letting the policy lapse. A gap is itself a fact the next insurer underwrites, and with a mortgage it triggers force-placed coverage, which protects the lender rather than you and costs more.
What we are not able to tell you
We publish information. We are not a licensed insurance producer, we do not sell insurance, and we cannot tell you whether a particular carrier will write a particular dog. Three things we will not guess at:
- Whether your dog counts as a restricted breed. We cannot see the dog, and as the guideline above shows, the answer may turn on appearance rather than ancestry.
- Whether your notice is lawful. That is a question about your document and your state's statute, and it is the kind of question a lawyer or your state insurance department answers, not a website.
- Whether a seventh state has legislated since we last checked. This area moves, lists of these states go stale quietly, and the table carries its date for that reason.
Corrections to this page (11)
We publish these rather than editing quietly. Our corrections policy explains how we handle errors.
- — Our Illinois row quoted the statute as reaching a dog “of a specific breed” and stopped there. It reads “of a specific breed or mixture of breeds”. Our own source registry had the full text and a note recording that an earlier cut understated the statute's reach; the table still carried the cut version. On a page whose thesis is that a mixed-breed dog can be declined on how it looks, an Illinois reader with a mixed-breed dog was reading themselves out of the statute.
- — We put Colorado's words in Nevada's mouth. An FAQ said Nevada’s statute says an insurer “may not ask or inquire” about breed. Those words are from Colorado's § 10-4-110.8(16)(c). Nevada restricts the question, but not in that language, and we now say so as our reading rather than as a quotation.
- — An FAQ said a carrier's guideline reaches any dog with the appearance of being predominantly “one of them” — meaning any breed on the list. It does not. That clause defines the single term “Pit Bull Dog” by reference to four named terriers. We corrected this in the body and in the source registry on 25 August and it never reached the FAQ, so a reader with a Chow or Akita mix was told the appearance clause caught their dog.
- — Our opening paragraph stated the ‘solely’ loophole as settled law. Everywhere in the body it is hedged — on the face of the text, and whether the argument succeeds is a legal question we cannot answer. The hedge now sits in the opening too. A reader whose notice lists breed plus one filler reason should not conclude from us that the statute is useless and skip a free department complaint.
- — We said three states restrict an insurer from asking the dog's breed, counting Arizona among them. Arizona does not: A.R.S. § 20-1510(A) says breed “may not be the sole factor considered or used for” questionnaires and underwriting, which is not a bar on asking. Two states restrict the question — Nevada and Colorado.
- — We said four states' statutes reach pricing. Minnesota's does not: Minn. Stat. § 65A.303, subd. 1 prohibits only refusing to issue or renew and cancelling. A breed-based premium increase is outside it.
- — Correcting a correction issued the same day. We said HB25-1207 took effect on 1 January 2026. It took effect on 6 August 2025 — signed 22 May 2025, Chapter 224. The January date is in the signed act, but in an unrelated section about Division of Housing financing; we read a date off the right bill and the wrong section. Colorado's widened protection has been in force five months longer than we said.
- — We wrote that three states restrict an insurer from asking a dog's breed, then corrected it to two — and left the body prose and the module's own correction log saying three. Arizona is now described consistently: its statute forbids breed being the sole factor, not the asking.
- — We quoted Colorado's § 10-4-110.8(16)(a) from the 2023 bill and ended the sentence at “dwelling”. HB25-1207 amended it with effect from 6 August 2025, and the sentence continues “, multifamily unit, or structure used as a residence”. Colorado also now covers commercial multifamily policies and renter and owner contents policies — we understated its reach.
- — We presented a carrier guideline's “appearance and characteristics” clause as reaching every breed on its prohibited list. It is the definition of the term “Pit Bull Dog” and reaches four terrier breeds. We also never quoted that document's closing line, which says pit bulls, rottweilers and dogs with a bite history “Will Not Be Accepted Under Any Circumstances” — closing, for those dogs, the exclusion-endorsement route this page recommends.
- — Our dangerous-dog exception column read “plus sound underwriting and actuarial principles” for Nevada, New York and Colorado, implying a second free-standing exception. All three are conjunctive. Minnesota's is the one drafted disjunctively, and our table did not say so.
How we researched this
Every statute on this page was read in the enacted session law or in the state's own published code. Where a state insurance department has published an FAQ we read that too, but no row rests on one — a regulator's FAQ gloss is not statutory text, and the two are easily printed as though they were.
This page was rewritten before publication after an independent adversarial check found eleven errors in the first draft, including a missing state, a carrier document misquoted inside quotation marks, and an effective date we had declared unknowable that turned out to be one search away. Every automated check in our pre-publication gate passed that draft. We are telling you this because it is the honest account of how the page was produced, and because a page about reading source documents carefully has no business concealing that it took two attempts.
What we did not do. We did not compile a breed list. No regulator publishes one, and the carrier document we read disclaims being a closed list in its own words. We looked at one carrier's guideline, in one state, and have labeled it that way rather than generalizing from it. We also did not attempt to count how many carriers restrict breeds: there is no published basis for such a number, and every figure of that kind we found traced back to another publisher.
Bills are not law. Nothing here describes a pending bill. If a seventh state has enacted a statute since our last check, this page is incomplete, and our corrections policy explains how to tell us.
Sources
Every passage this page puts in quotation marks, with the document it came from, the part of that document, and the date we read it. 20 quotations from 9 documents. Follow the links and check us. Statutes are amended and pages move; if one of these is wrong or dead, our corrections policy says how we handle it.
NRS 687B.383(1), as enacted by SB 103 (81st Session, 2021), § 1 subsection 1, quoted from the ENROLLED bill. TWO EARLIER ENTRIES WERE WRONG. One read 'shall not refuse to issue, cancel, fail to renew or increase the premium or rate' — https://archive.leg.state.nv.us/Session/81st2021/Bills/SB/SB103_EN.pdf
Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, an insurer shall not: (a) Refuse to issue; (b) Cancel; (c) Refuse to renew; or (d) Increase a premium or rate for, a policy of insurance based solely on the specific breed or mixture of breeds of a dog that is harbored or owned on an applicable property.
NRS 687B.383(1), as enacted by SB 103 (81st Session, 2021), § 1 subsection 1, quoted from the ENROLLED bill. TWO EARLIER ENTRIES WERE WRONG. One read 'shall not refuse to issue, cancel, fail to renew or increase the premium or rate' — the statute says 'Refuse to renew', not 'fail to renew', and the prohibition is a lettered list, not a comma run; that string appears nowhere in the law. The other read 'solely on the basis of the breed of a dog', which is the SECTION HEADING, not the operative text — a paraphrase inside quotation marks Retrieved 24 August 2026.
N.Y. Ins. Law § 3421(1) — https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ISC/3421
based solely upon harboring or owning any dog of a specific breed or mixture of breeds
N.Y. Ins. Law § 3421(1) Retrieved 24 August 2026.
refuse to issue or renew, cancel, or charge or impose an increased premium or rate
N.Y. Ins. Law § 3421(1) — the 'or' after 'cancel,' had been dropped from an earlier entry Retrieved 24 August 2026.
or exclude, limit, restrict, or reduce coverage
N.Y. Ins. Law § 3421(1) Retrieved 24 August 2026.
on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law
Ch. 545 of 2021, the enacting act's effective-date clause Retrieved 24 August 2026.
A.R.S. § 20-1510(A), the opening clause governing BOTH numbered items. Quoting item (2) without it turned a sole-factor limit into an absolute bar on the question — https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0243.pdf
The breed of a dog may not be the sole factor considered or used for
A.R.S. § 20-1510(A), the opening clause governing BOTH numbered items. Quoting item (2) without it turned a sole-factor limit into an absolute bar on the question Retrieved 24 August 2026.
questionnaires, surveys or other means of gathering information
A.R.S. § 20-1510(A)(2), as enacted by Laws 2022 ch. 243 — item 2 of the list governed by the sole-factor clause above. It is NOT a free-standing prohibition Retrieved 24 August 2026.
actual or perceived breed or mixture of breeds of a dog
A.R.S. § 20-1510(B), definition of 'breed' Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Minn. Stat. § 65A.303, subd. 1 — https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2024/cite/65A.303
(1) refusing to issue or renew an insurance policy or contract, or (2) canceling an insurance policy or contract
Minn. Stat. § 65A.303, subd. 1 — the two prohibited acts, in full. There is no third limb and no mention of premium or rate Retrieved 24 August 2026.
based solely on the fact that the homeowner harbors or owns one dog of a specific breed or mixture of breeds
Minn. Stat. § 65A.303, subd. 1 — the qualifier attaching to the two acts quoted above, not to a general prohibition Retrieved 24 August 2026.
215 ILCS 5/143.10e(a), added by P.A. 103-11, eff. 9 Dec 2023. An earlier entry cut before 'or mixture of breeds', which understated the statute's reach — https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=021500050K143.10e
based solely upon harboring or owning any dog of a specific breed or mixture of breeds
215 ILCS 5/143.10e(a), added by P.A. 103-11, eff. 9 Dec 2023. An earlier entry cut before 'or mixture of breeds', which understated the statute's reach Retrieved 24 August 2026.
C.R.S. § 10-4-110.8(16)(a), as enacted by HB23-1068 — https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2023a_1068_signed.pdf
shall not refuse to issue, cancel, refuse to renew, or increase a premium or rate
C.R.S. § 10-4-110.8(16)(a), as enacted by HB23-1068 Retrieved 24 August 2026.
may not ask or otherwise inquire about the specific breed or mixture of breeds
C.R.S. § 10-4-110.8(16)(c) Retrieved 24 August 2026.
C.R.S. § 10-4-110.8(16)(a) AS AMENDED by HB25-1207, eff. 6 August 2025, quoted from the signed bill (new text printed there in small capitals). Three defects in the entry this replaces, all from quoting the 2023 text: it ended with a period at 'dwelling' where the sentence continues, collapsing a three-item enumeration into one; it read 'breeds of dog' where the statute reads 'breeds of a dog'; and it was superseded — https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2025a_1207_signed.pdf
based on the breed or mixture of breeds of a dog that is kept at the dwelling, multifamily unit, or structure used as a residence.
C.R.S. § 10-4-110.8(16)(a) AS AMENDED by HB25-1207, eff. 6 August 2025, quoted from the signed bill (new text printed there in small capitals). Three defects in the entry this replaces, all from quoting the 2023 text: it ended with a period at 'dwelling' where the sentence continues, collapsing a three-item enumeration into one; it read 'breeds of dog' where the statute reads 'breeds of a dog'; and it was superseded Retrieved 24 August 2026.
3 P.S. § 459-507-A(d), in the Dog Law's dangerous-dog article — https://www.animallaw.info/statute/pa-dangerous-%C2%A7-459-507-construction-article-dangerous-dogs
No liability policy or surety bond issued pursuant to this act or any other act may prohibit coverage from any specific breed of dog.
3 P.S. § 459-507-A(d), in the Dog Law's dangerous-dog article Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Texas homeowners underwriting guideline, Unacceptable Animals page (no version date shown) — https://ptshelp.hoaic.com/index.cfm/underwriting-guidelines/texas-homeowners/unacceptable-animals
Prohibited breeds of dogs include but are not limited to
Texas homeowners underwriting guideline, Unacceptable Animals page (no version date shown) Retrieved 24 August 2026.
any dog which has the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of the breeds of
Texas homeowners underwriting guideline, Unacceptable Animals page — and the PART matters more than usual here. This clause is the FIFTH BULLET OF THE SUB-LIST DEFINING THE TERM ‘Pit Bull Dog’, and it reaches four named terrier breeds and pit-bull types. It does NOT reach the prohibited-breed list (Akita, Chow Chow, Doberman, Rottweiler and the rest). An earlier version of this page presented it as an operative clause covering ‘those listed’, which is a definition of one term read as a general reach Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Any dog that is a hybrid or mix of a prohibited breed, or which has the appearance or characteristics of a prohibited breed
Texas homeowners underwriting guideline, Unacceptable Animals page, sixth bullet. THIS is the clause that reaches beyond the named list — not the ‘Pit Bull Dog’ definition above it Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Some Animals May Be Accepted With An Animal Exclusion Endorsement
Texas homeowners underwriting guideline, Unacceptable Animals page, final block — the sentence that opens the remedy, immediately before the one that closes it for two breeds Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Pit Bulls, Rottweilers Or Dogs With A Bite History Will Not Be Accepted Under Any Circumstances.
Texas homeowners underwriting guideline, Unacceptable Animals page, final line, immediately after ‘Some Animals May Be Accepted With An Animal Exclusion Endorsement’. It is the sentence that tells a pit bull or rottweiler owner that the exclusion-endorsement route this page recommends is closed to them at this carrier Retrieved 24 August 2026.
What we could not find
This page makes 7 claims that something does not exist. That is the one kind of claim you cannot check by following a link, because there is no document to link to — so here is the search behind each one, and what we opened. Not finding something is not a finding. If you know of a source we missed, our corrections policy says how to tell us.
“We checked, and no state insurance department publishes one.”
Where we looked 24 August 2026.
- Searched for a restricted-breed list published by any state insurance department, by department name and by 'banned breeds' phrasing
- Searched the NAIC's own site for a breed list as distinct from its breed-specific-legislation topic page
What we actually opened
- https://content.naic.org/insurance-topics/breed-specific-legislation
- https://ptshelp.hoaic.com/index.cfm/underwriting-guidelines/texas-homeowners/unacceptable-animals
- State department consumer pages reached from the breed searches; every list found was published by a comparison or lead-generation site, not a regulator
“Arizona is the exception: § 20-1510 has no exception subsection and does not mention dangerous dogs at all.”
Where we looked 24 August 2026.
- Read the enacted text of Laws 2022 ch. 243 end to end for an exception subsection
- Searched that text for 'dangerous', 'vicious' and any animal-control cross-reference
What we actually opened
- https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0243.pdf
- Arizona DIFI's published FAQ on A.R.S. § 20-1510, which also describes no dangerous-dog exception
“We also did not attempt to count how many carriers restrict breeds: there is no published basis for such a number, and every figure of that kind we found traced back to another publisher.”
Where we looked 24 August 2026.
- Searched for a regulator-published or industry-published count of carriers applying breed restrictions
- Traced back each figure found in secondary sources to its stated origin
What we actually opened
- https://content.naic.org/insurance-topics/breed-specific-legislation
- https://ptshelp.hoaic.com/index.cfm/underwriting-guidelines/texas-homeowners/unacceptable-animals
- Every count located resolved to another publisher's compilation rather than to a carrier filing or a regulator
“It sits in the Dog Law's dangerous-dog article rather than the Insurance Code, and we have not found a departmental interpretation applying it to ordinary homeowners policies.”
Where we looked 24 August 2026.
- Searched for a Pennsylvania Insurance Department bulletin or notice construing 3 P.S. § 459-507-A(d)
- Searched for case law or departmental guidance applying that subsection outside the dangerous-dog context
What we actually opened
- https://www.animallaw.info/statute/pa-dangerous-%C2%A7-459-507-construction-article-dangerous-dogs
- Pennsylvania Insurance Department materials reached from those searches; none construes the subsection
“The statute has no exception subsection and never mentions dangerous dogs”
Where we looked 24 August 2026.
- Read Laws 2022 ch. 243 end to end for an exception subsection
- Searched that text for 'dangerous', 'vicious' and any animal-control cross-reference
What we actually opened
- https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0243.pdf
- Arizona DIFI's published FAQ on A.R.S. § 20-1510
“There is no authoritative roster to appeal to.”
Where we looked 24 August 2026.
- Searched every state insurance department reachable for a published restricted-breed list
- Searched the NAIC site for a breed list distinct from its legislation topic page
What we actually opened
- https://content.naic.org/insurance-topics/breed-specific-legislation
- https://ptshelp.hoaic.com/index.cfm/underwriting-guidelines/texas-homeowners/unacceptable-animals
“Where a column says “no”, the statute is silent”
Where we looked 24 August 2026.
- Read each of the six statutes in full for the column's subject
- Confirmed silence rather than absence by reading the whole section, not searching within it
What we actually opened
- https://archive.leg.state.nv.us/Session/81st2021/Bills/SB/SB103_EN.pdf
- https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ISC/3421
- https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0243.pdf
- https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2024/cite/65A.303
- https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=021500050K143.10e
- https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2023a_1068_signed.pdf
Frequently asked questions
Which states stop insurers using dog breed in home insurance?
Six, as at 24 August 2026: Nevada (NRS 687B.383), New York (Insurance Law § 3421), Arizona (A.R.S. § 20-1510), Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 65A.303), Illinois (215 ILCS 5/143.10e) and Colorado (C.R.S. § 10-4-110.8(16)). Five of the six prohibit breed as the sole reason for an adverse decision; Colorado's subsection contains no such qualifier.
Can my insurer still ask what breed my dog is?
In two of the six, no. Nevada restricts the question to whether the dog is known to be dangerous or vicious — we state that as our reading of NRS 687B.383 rather than quoting it, because the words “may not ask” are Colorado's, not Nevada's. Colorado says in terms that an insurer “may not ask or otherwise inquire” about breed except as to dangerous status. Arizona is not a third. Its statute reaches “questionnaires, surveys or other means of gathering information” — but that phrase sits under “the breed of a dog may not be the sole factor considered or used for”, so Arizona forbids breed being the only thing driving the questionnaire, not the asking itself. Lists that count Arizona as a third ask-ban state will tell you your insurer may not ask, when it plainly may. In New York, Minnesota and Illinois the insurer may ask; the limit is on what it does with the answer.
My notice says breed and one other reason. Does the law still help?
That is the difficulty. Five of the six statutes prohibit an adverse decision made solely because of breed, and a notice stating two grounds is, on the face of the text, not a decision made solely on breed. Colorado's has no such qualifier. Whether the argument succeeds in a particular case is a legal question we cannot answer for you — which is a good reason to keep the notice exactly as it was written.
Can the insurer just exclude the dog instead of dropping me?
Often yes, and it is usually the better outcome for you: the policy stays in force and the exclusion is limited to liability arising from the dog. New York's and Illinois's statutes expressly reach exclusions as well as non-renewals. The Nevada, Arizona, Minnesota and Colorado provisions address issuing, cancelling and renewing — Arizona is drafted around underwriting and actuarial processes instead — Nevada and Colorado reach premium and rate too, Minnesota does not — and do not mention exclusions; we have found no case or bulletin construing that difference. It is worth asking for in writing whatever state you are in.
Does a dangerous-dog designation change things?
In five of the six, yes. Each of those anchors its exception to the state's own animal-control law — for example New York's Agriculture and Markets Law § 123, Nevada's NRS 202.500 and Colorado's § 18-9-204.5. A formal designation is a legal determination with a record behind it. Arizona is the exception: § 20-1510 has no exception subsection and does not mention dangerous dogs at all.
Is there an authoritative list of banned breeds?
No. We checked, and no state insurance department publishes one. Every list circulating online was assembled by a publisher. The only breed lists with any authority are individual carriers' own underwriting guidelines, and the one we read is expressly open-ended — it says “Prohibited breeds of dogs include but are not limited to”. Read the appearance clause carefully: it defines the single term “Pit Bull Dog” by reference to four named terriers, and does not reach every breed on the list. What does the general work is the separate bullet for a hybrid or mix of them.
Will a DNA test prove my dog is not a restricted breed?
It may help and it is not a trump card. The underwriting guideline we examined is written around appearance as well as ancestry, so a test result does not necessarily meet the criterion being applied. Arizona is the one state whose statute addresses this directly: it defines “breed” as the actual or perceived breed or mixture of breeds. Elsewhere, ask the carrier what it would accept before paying for one.