When we built the research for our webinar “Lawsuits in Property Management That Could Have Been Prevented,” we analyzed two lists: the most common lawsuit types facing property managers, and the most expensive.
Most risk categories appear on one list or the other. Negligent security produces eye-watering verdicts but isn’t the most frequent claim. Slip-and-falls are common but rarely reach the dollar amounts of structural failures.
One category appears on both lists. Animal incidents.
What Makes This Different from Every Other Risk Category
Negligent security requires capital investment: lighting upgrades, access control systems, security contracts. Carbon monoxide prevention requires vendor management and equipment maintenance programs. Structural failure prevention requires qualified engineers and proactive inspection schedules.
These risks are real. But closing them requires time, budget, and often capital expenditure.
Animal incidents are different. The exposure doesn’t come from a broken system or deferred capital project. It comes from three things:
- inadequate screening at move-in,
- no enforcement when violations occur,
- and no documentation when complaints arise.
Those aren’t capital problems. They’re operational problems. And they’re solvable with a system.
The $2 Million Case That Explains Everything
In Florida, a resident’s two pit bulls escaped from a rental property and attacked a passerby on the sidewalk. The property manager was shown to have known they on the property.
That’s the entire case. Property manager knowledge plus absence of documented action equals premises liability.
The settlement: $2 million.
This case wasn’t unusual. It’s the template. Property managers lose these cases not because they were unaware of the risk, but because they knew and couldn’t produce a single document showing they acted.
The $1.3 Million Case That Should Scare Every Operator with a Breed Restriction Policy
In California, a woman was attacked by a resident’s dog in a shared walkway at an apartment community. Property management had a breed restriction policy. The dog violated it. The property knew. They allowed it anyway.
Settlement: $1.3 million. Legal theory: premises liability and policy enforcement failure.
If you have a written pet policy but no enforcement documentation, your policy isn’t a defense. It’s evidence.
Plaintiff’s attorneys love written policies that aren’t enforced. They demonstrate that the operator knew the standard and chose not to meet it.
The ESA Complication That Most Operators Are Navigating Incorrectly
Emotional Support Animals (ESAs) exist in a separate regulatory framework from pets. Under the Fair Housing Act, property managers are required to consider ESA accommodation requests regardless of breed or no-pet policies.
This creates real operational complexity: you can’t simply apply a breed restriction to an ESA. But you also can’t approve every ESA request without verification.
The problem is documentation on both sides. Many operators approve ESA letters without verifying their legitimacy. Others deny requests that have legal merit and create Fair Housing exposure.
ESA fraud is real and well-documented. Fraudulent letters create animals on your property that lack the training, temperament assessment, and documentation that legitimate ESAs carry. When those animals cause incidents, the operator carries the liability.
What the Right System Actually Does
OurPetPolicy was built specifically to close these gaps. Here’s what it changes in practice:
- Every animal is screened and approved before move-in pets and ESAs alike. ESA letters are verified for legitimacy, not just received.
- Behavior complaints are logged and tracked centrally. Every violation generates a documented notice to the resident.
- Inspection records, incident reports, and enforcement actions create a timestamped, auditable trail.
- OPP assumes liability for animals it approves. If an approved ESA causes damage, OurPetPolicy stands behind that approval.
That last point is the one that separates OurPetPolicy from every other platform in this space. PetScreening provides screening. OurPetPolicy provides screening plus liability assumption.
The difference matters when a plaintiff’s attorney asks the question: “Did you know this animal had a history of aggression?” With OurPetPolicy, the answer isn’t silence. It’s documentation.
The Compliance That Pays for Itself
OurPetPolicy customers recover an average of $46,505 in previously uncaptured pet revenue per property per year. Pet fees, pet rent, pet deposits properly structured and consistently collected.
The platform doesn’t just reduce liability exposure. It generates revenue that typically covers the cost of the platform within the first month.
If you’re managing animal policy manually through spreadsheets, email threads, or inconsistent enforcement you’re leaving both revenue and risk management on the table.
%20(1).jpg)
