HB1515 amends Pennsylvania’s Dog Law to add a new article governing insurance practices related to dog ownership. The bill prohibits an insurer from refusing to issue or renew a homeowner’s insurance policy, canceling such a policy, or charging a higher premium solely because an insured owns or harbors a dog of a specific breed or mix of breeds.
The bill includes an exception for dogs that have been determined to be “dangerous dogs” under the Dog Law. In those cases, insurers would still be allowed to take underwriting or pricing action based on the presence of that dog. The measure applies to homeowner’s insurance policies issued, renewed, or modified on or after the effective date, which is 60 days after enactment.
Impact
HB1515 would create a new statutory protection for homeowners with certain dog breeds by limiting breed-based insurance underwriting in Pennsylvania. It would amend the Dog Law to bar insurers licensed in the Commonwealth from using breed or mixed-breed ownership alone as a basis to deny, cancel, or surcharge homeowner’s insurance, while preserving insurer discretion for dogs formally designated as dangerous under existing law. The bill would affect homeowners, dog owners, and property/casualty insurers, and would apply prospectively to new, renewed, or modified policies after the effective date.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or recorded support/opposition in the provided materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears aimed at consumer protection and reducing breed-based insurance discrimination, suggesting a generally pro-homeowner and pro-pet-owner policy approach. The absence of recorded votes or discussion prevents a more specific assessment of legislative sentiment.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the balance between consumer protection and insurer risk management. Supporters would likely favor the bill for preventing blanket discrimination against owners of certain breeds, while insurers may object that breed can be relevant to underwriting or claims risk. The bill addresses that concern in part by preserving insurer authority when a dog has been legally determined to be dangerous, but the scope of the breed-based prohibition could still be debated.
In general provisions relating to residential real property, further providing for definitions; in seller disclosures, further providing for disclosure form and providing for website information and for flood disclosure; and imposing duties on the Insurance Department.
In licenses, tags and kennels, further providing for revocation or refusal of kennel licenses and providing for prohibition on sale of dogs bred by certain persons; and, in enforcement and penalties, providing for whistleblower protection.
In short title and definitions, further providing for definitions; and, in enforcement and penalties, further providing for enforcement of this act by the secretary and provisions for inspections.