Revises provisions relating to housing. (BDR 57-713)
Summary
SB166 revises two areas of Nevada law related to housing. First, it broadens the state’s restrictions on breed-based dog discrimination in insurance. Under current law, insurers generally may not deny, cancel, refuse to renew, or raise rates solely because of a dog’s breed. The bill removes the “solely” limitation, expands the rule to cover insurance policies for multi-family residential dwellings, and continues to allow underwriting action when a specific dog is known or declared to be dangerous or vicious. It also keeps the prohibition on insurers asking about breed except to determine whether the dog is dangerous or vicious.
Second, the bill changes the supportive housing grant program administered by the Housing Division of the Department of Business and Industry. Any recipient of a supportive housing grant must agree in writing to allow tenants to keep at least one pet, subject to applicable public health, animal control, and cruelty laws. The bill also clarifies definitions related to supportive housing and supportive services, and preserves the Division’s reporting and regulatory duties for the program.
Impact
SB166 amends NRS 687B.383 to expand anti-discrimination protections in insurance underwriting for dog ownership, including policies covering multi-family residential dwellings and umbrella policies. It also amends NRS 319.600 to impose a pet-allowance condition on supportive housing grant recipients, affecting how grant-funded supportive housing properties are operated and what lease restrictions may be imposed. The bill therefore affects insurers, housing providers, supportive housing developers, and tenants in supportive housing, while leaving exceptions for dangerous or vicious dogs and for compliance with public health and animal welfare laws.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received generally favorable legislative support, passing the Senate 14-7 and the Assembly 30-12. The vote margins suggest broad but not unanimous approval. The policy themes—tenant pet access, housing stability, and limiting breed-based insurance discrimination—are consistent with a pro-housing and tenant-friendly approach, though the recorded votes indicate some members had reservations.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely the expansion of insurance restrictions and the mandate that supportive housing grant recipients allow at least one pet. Insurers and some lawmakers may view the dog-breed provisions as limiting underwriting discretion, especially because the bill removes the requirement that breed be the sole basis for an adverse action and extends the rule to multi-family residential dwelling policies. On the housing side, supportive housing providers may object to a statutory pet requirement as reducing property-management flexibility, while supporters likely see pets as an important stability and companionship factor for vulnerable tenants, especially those experiencing homelessness or behavioral or physical health challenges.