What can landlords do to reduce risk of lawuit when renting to tenants with dogs? -

I have some prospective tenants who have dogs, one of which is a Pitt bull. Even though these particular dogs may be gentle, the fear is that if they get out and injure someone, I, as the property owner could be held responsible. I am wondering if the following options are wise and if there are other options I am unaware of: Increased liability insurance. Have tenant sign a document stating that they alone are responsible for their dogs. 1) Increase your liability insurance to the maximum you can purchase; 2) purchase an umbrella policy for an additional $1 million or more if you can afford it; 3) the lease should require that your tenant's purchase and have in effect at all times a renters policy with a liability limit of at least $500,000 (or the maximum available limit), the policy should name you as additional insured and they should provide proof of coverage via a Certificate of Insurance; 4) have an attorney include a "hold harmless clause" in the lease whereby the tenants agree to indemnify you in case of any claims arising from the pet on your premises. You should also probably require that the tenants provide you a copy of the application for the insurance policy so that you can make sure that the pet was declared at the time of application. One of the insurance companies that I represent has me "meet" the dog and gouging by the dog's reaction, i.e. to a stranger you can usually tell if the dog is a problem. In this market sometimes your only option is to rent to people with dogs but as long as you do your "homework", you should be fine. However, I would personally charge a higher deposit and a slightly higher monthly rent if your local market will allow it for the increased exposure. Good luck You really need to speak to a lawyer in your area to get a solid answer to this question. Laws are different from place to place. Usually you can get a free consult on things like this if you call around a bit. Let me tell you why I suggest you contact a lawyer ahead of time - A couple we know, friends of ours, went away for a weekend and left their dogs home where a relative of theirs was going to stop in several times and check on them. While they where gone, a so-called friend of theirs dropped by and used the hidden key to gain access to the house with their 2 year old in tow. This "friend" was fully aware that one of the dogs was not friendly with children and that it had shown signs of aggression towards children, so it was always locked up when there were children present. This "friend" gave her daughter a slice of pizza and left her alone with this dog and then sued the couple when the dog bit her daughter. The couple was dropped by their home owners insurance and ended up taking this case to the state supreme court to finally get out of the liability for their friend knowingly entering their home while they were away and being irresponsible with her child when the owners had done everything possible to be responsible for their pets. You really need to know which side the law is on in this case and asking here probably isn't going to give you an answer that will stand up in court. I'd say it's easier not to allow dogs. You know your neighbors may not love the pit bull either. For me i would take;Have tenant sign a document stating that they are responsible that if the dog bite or injure some one,and they are responsible for the damage the dog does.And its not the responsibility of the landlord.And make them sign and date the paper and you sign after,give them a paper and keep one for you.I hope i help you a bit.But it would be more secure to have it made by a lawyer. Well, obviously, prohibit dogs. Darned tootin' you'll be held responsible. You knowingly have a high bite hazard dog on your property. Heaven forbid he even bites a cute little 4 year old girl, and she has a facial scar. You'll be held responsible for $100,000, or even more, and then no one will want to give you liabiltiy insurance. ANY JURY is going to find against that mean, money grubbing landlord, because you KNOW the tenant isn't going to have any assets - so YOU will be the one sued. Sure, you can increase your liabiltiy insurance. Will it COVER bites from a tenant's dog? That paper from the tenant - won't hold up in court. Sorry. You'll still be held responsible - it's 'against public policy' to allow you to waive your responsibiltiy for that. You MIGHT want to require the tenant to get renters coverage, INCLUDING dog bite liability for the specific dog. But, frankly, I don't know of any insurance companies that will cover a pitt bull. And if he lies about the breed, well, then the coverage is void, and you're back to it. Best thing - write into the lease/rental agreement, that DOGS ARE NOT ALLOWED. Period. Then if they sneak the dog in, it's not your problem - unless other tenants/neighbors complain to you. Then you have witnesses that knew the dog was there, and knew you didn't evict the tenant for it. I think both of your ideas are probably a good idea. Another would be to require the tenant to have renters insurance.