An Act Concerning Dog Breed And Therapy Animals In Insurance Underwriting And Evaluating The Feasibility Of Establishing A Penalty For Misrepresenting A Dog As A Service Animal.
Summary
SB 1386 prohibits homeowners and renters insurers from charging higher premiums, canceling, refusing to renew, or otherwise restricting coverage solely because of the breed or mix of breeds of a dog owned or kept by the insured. The bill still allows insurers to take action based on an individual dog being designated a dangerous dog, so long as that decision is grounded in underwriting and actuarial principles tied to the insurer’s actual loss experience.
The bill also creates specific protections for households with service animals and therapy animals. Insurers may not set rates, minimum premiums, or deny coverage solely because an insured owns a dog trained or being trained as a service animal for blind, deaf, or mobility-impaired persons, or because the insured owns a therapy animal. In addition, the bill directs the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities to study whether Connecticut should create a penalty for intentionally misrepresenting a dog as a service animal to obtain ADA accommodations, and to report its findings to legislative committees by February 1, 2026.
Impact
The bill would add new restrictions to Connecticut insurance law governing homeowners and tenants policies, limiting the use of dog breed as an underwriting factor and creating explicit protections for service animals and therapy animals. It also authorizes the Insurance Commissioner to adopt implementing regulations. Separately, it requires CHRO to conduct a feasibility review on penalties for service-animal misrepresentation, but does not itself create such a penalty.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad support, though not unanimous. It received a strong favorable vote in the Insurance and Real Estate Committee and passed the Senate 30-6, suggesting general agreement with the goal of preventing breed-based insurance discrimination and protecting people who rely on service or therapy animals. The vote margins also indicate some lawmakers remained unconvinced or had reservations about the scope or policy approach.
Contention
The main point of contention is the balance between preventing breed discrimination and preserving insurers’ ability to manage risk. Opponents or skeptics may be concerned that limiting breed-based underwriting could interfere with actuarial practices, while supporters likely view breed-only distinctions as unfair and not a reliable proxy for risk. A second issue is the proposed study of penalties for falsely claiming a dog is a service animal; that topic can raise concerns about enforcement, disability accommodations, and the potential for misuse of service-animal designations.