The Gap Between How Insurers Treat Certain Breeds and How Washington Law Actually Works
If you've recently applied for a homeowner's insurance policy, you may have encountered a question that catches many applicants off guard: Does anyone in your household own a dog from a specified list of breeds? The list typically includes dogs like Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Dobermans, Chow Chows, and a range of other breeds that insurers classify, for their own underwriting purposes, as higher risk. Depending on your answer, you may be quoted a higher premium, offered limited liability coverage, or denied coverage for dog-related claims altogether.
That experience raises a question worth examining: if Washington State law treats all dog breeds the same for liability purposes, why does a dog's breed matter so much to an insurer?
At The Scott Law Firm, PLLC, attorney Colin Scott handles dog bite and personal injury cases in Vancouver and throughout Southwest Washington. The disconnect between how insurance companies approach breed and how Washington law approaches breed has real consequences for injured victims, and understanding that disconnect is worth some attention.
What Washington's Dog Bite Law Actually Says
Washington's primary dog bite statute, RCW 16.08.040, establishes a strict liability standard. Under this law, the owner of any dog that bites a person while that person is in a public place, or lawfully in a private place, including the owner's own property, is liable for the resulting damages regardless of the dog's prior history of aggression or the owner's knowledge of any such history.
This is a meaningful distinction from the so-called "one bite rule" that other states apply, where an owner may escape liability for a first bite if they had no prior reason to know the dog was dangerous. Washington does not follow that approach. The breed of the dog and whether the owner knew or should have known that the dog posed a risk are not elements a victim must prove to establish the owner's liability under the statute.
Equally notable is what RCW 16.08.110 says at the state level: Washington law generally does not allow breed-based determinations in the context of the dangerous dog classification process unless certain conditions are met. Thus, a city or county located in Washington may not meet its burden of proving a dog should be classified as "potentially dangerous" solely on the basis of breed. The focus, under state law, is on individual behavior rather than breed identity.
There are, however, some important qualifications. Local jurisdictions in Washington retain the authority to enact breed-specific ordinances, and some have done so. Whether a particular municipality has breed-specific rules in place is a fact-specific question that can affect dog owners' obligations in that area, even if state law is breed-neutral.
Why Insurers Still Ask About Breed
Insurance companies are not bound by Washington's breed-neutral approach to dangerous dog classification. From an underwriting perspective, insurers rely on their own actuarial data and claims history to assess risk, and breed appears on those lists because some companies have determined, based on their own data, that certain breeds generate disproportionate claims exposure.
The practical result is that owning a dog from one of the listed breeds may affect your homeowner's or renter's policy in several ways:
- Premium adjustments: Some insurers charge higher premiums for policies covering households with certain breeds, reflecting the insurer's assessment of increased liability exposure.
- Exclusions from dog-related liability coverage: Some policies include endorsements that specifically exclude dog bite liability for certain breeds. If a bite occurs involving an excluded breed, the insurer may decline to indemnify the owner.
- Policy denial: In some cases, an insurer may decline to issue a policy altogether if the applicant owns a breed on the insurer's restricted list.
It is worth noting that insurance company practices vary considerably, and not all insurers apply breed restrictions in the same way. Some companies have moved away from breed-specific underwriting entirely, relying instead on individual bite history or other factors. The landscape is not uniform, and a policy that excludes coverage for one breed may not reflect how all insurers approach the same dog.
The Gap This Creates for Injured Victims
Here is where the tension between insurance underwriting and Washington's strict liability law becomes practically significant for people who are hurt by dogs.
Under RCW 16.08.040, a dog owner is legally responsible for a bite injury, regardless of breed or prior history. That legal obligation exists whether or not the owner has adequate insurance coverage to satisfy it. If a dog owner's homeowner's policy excludes liability for the breed that caused the injury, the victim may still have a valid legal claim against the owner personally, but recovering compensation may depend on whether the owner has sufficient personal assets to satisfy a judgment, or whether other sources of coverage exist.
This can affect injured victims in several ways. The existence and scope of insurance coverage, including whether any breed-specific exclusion applies, are factual and legal questions that may need to be examined in the course of a claim. A policy that appears to provide liability coverage may contain language that limits or eliminates that coverage in a dog bite scenario involving a particular breed. The interaction between the policy's terms, Washington's strict liability statute, and any applicable local ordinances can make these situations more complex than they might initially appear.
What This Means for Dog Owners in Southwest Washington
For dog owners in Clark County and the surrounding area, the insurance questions raised by breed-specific underwriting have practical implications worth considering:
- If you own a breed that appears on common insurer restricted lists, it may be worth reviewing your current policy to understand whether your liability coverage applies to dog bite incidents involving that dog, and whether any exclusions exist. For clarification, call and ask your insurer or consult with an attorney.
- Local ordinances in some Washington municipalities may impose additional obligations on owners of dogs that have been declared dangerous, including containment requirements or mandatory liability insurance minimums. These obligations exist independently of the state's breed-neutral dangerous dog classification rules.
- The fact that a dog has no prior bite history does not eliminate the owner's potential liability under Washington law if a bite occurs. Washington's strict liability statute applies regardless of prior history.
None of this is intended as a suggestion that any particular breed is inherently dangerous or that owning a listed breed creates legal liability in the absence of a bite or attack. Washington law does not take that view, and neither does this post. What the insurance question does illustrate is that the way private companies assess risk is not always aligned with how the law assigns responsibility, and that gap is worth understanding.
If You Were Bitten by a Dog in Washington, Call Colin Scott
If you have been bitten or injured by a dog in Vancouver or elsewhere in Southwest Washington, the breed of the dog involved does not determine whether you may have a claim. Instead, Washington's strict liability statute and general negligence laws may place the responsibility on the dog's owner when the legal conditions for liability are met, and an attorney can help assess the specific circumstances, including any applicable insurance coverage and local ordinances that may be relevant.
Attorney Colin Scott handles dog bite and personal injury cases throughout Clark County and Southwest Washington on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront fees and you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you. Contact us today for a free consultation.
Client Testimonial
"Colin Scott was very clear in stating all possible outcomes and handled the entire case very efficiently. I didn't have to stress about it and all my concerns were answered timely. This experience has certainly exceeded all my expectations!" — Liliya, ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Disclaimer
Web content is not legal advice. Using this website does not establish an attorney-client relationship. If you have questions about a legal matter, you should consult with an attorney who is licensed to practice law in the appropriate jurisdiction and is familiar with the facts in your situation. To learn more about how The Scott Law Firm, PLLC can assist you with a personal injury related matter, contact our office today for a free consultation.