doG, you're right. Vicious animals on the premises is a legitimate reason to decline or nonrenew homeowner or landlord liability policies. The only thing is, they have to know they're vicious. I don't know many of them that nonrenew or cancel because a dog is present. If, however, the dog seems vicious to the inspector (the companies usually inspect at some time), it gets reported and the company requires the owners to either subdue the dog on a chain or get rid of the dog altogether. Which absolutely doesn't mean it will happen, but just covers the insurance company's butts if the dog bites/mauls again and the homeowner/landlord is sued. All of a sudden, coverage doesn't apply.
My take is this. If I own my home, I will get insurance because my mortgage co will make me. If I don't own, I may or may not have renter's coverage for my liability. If I'm the type of person who knowingly harbors a dangerous animal and doesn't care, I probably don't care enough to carry any kind of insurance that's not required. Bottom line? If the guy doesn't own his home, there's probably no insurance coverage applicable here.
About passing new laws: use Dodge City as a marker. How many times has nuisance-pet ordinances been brought up? How many have passed? How many are really needed because none are enforced? So why bother. I agree with Detector - it's the right thing to do and we (as a country) seem to have lost sight of that.
