N.Y. court expands liability for dog bites: What producers need to know 

In a landmark decision with wide-ranging implications for dog bite claims and insurance liability, the New York Court of Appeals ruled in Flanders v. Goodfellow that plaintiffs may pursue negligence claims against pet owners, in addition to strict liability, for injuries caused by domestic animals.  

This decision reverses nearly two decades of legal precedent, and it fundamentally reshapes the liability landscape in New York state. 

The lawsuit facts 

Rebecca Flanders, a postal worker, was delivering a package when she was bitten by a 70-pound dog owned by Stephen and Michelle Goodfellow. The dog escaped from inside the home and lunged at her, biting her shoulder and causing serious injuries that required multiple surgeries and leading to permanent scarring. 

Flanders sued the Goodfellows under both strict liability and negligence. While New York state has long recognized strict liability for owners who know—or should know—of an animal’s vicious propensities, the courts below the Court of Appeals dismissed her negligence claim, citing the Court of Appeals case of Bard v. Jahnke, which barred negligence actions in which a vicious propensity was not known.  

Flanders appealed the decision to the New York Court of Appeals. 

The opinion 

The court delivered two rulings, one micro and one macro in scope. 

First, the court found sufficient evidence that the Goodfellows may have had constructive knowledge of their dog’s dangerous tendencies. Multiple postal workers testified to the dog’s aggressive behavior—growling, barking and slamming against windows—during previous deliveries.  

The court also pointed to a troubling prior incident in which the dog fought with another dog during training.  

Based on this, the court held that there was a question of act and reinstated the Flanders’ action. 

Let’s talk about stare decisis 

Most importantly, the court explicitly overruled Bard, holding that plaintiffs may now assert common-law negligence claims against pet owners in addition to traditional strict liability claims.  The Court emphasized that while stare decisis—the legal theory that a Court should follow legal precedent—promotes consistency, predictability and judicial integrity, it is not an “inexorable command.”  

The court found that the rule established in Bard, which barred negligence claims for injuries caused by domestic animals, had proven to be out of step with general tort principles, unworkable in practice and, in many cases, unjust.  

The court noted that subsequent carve-outs and exceptions to Bard had eroded its clarity and fairness, making its continued application a barrier to justice rather than a source of stability. Citing the evolving legal landscape and widespread adoption of alternative frameworks in other states, the court concluded that the time had come to overrule Bard and allow plaintiffs to pursue negligence claims against pet owners. 

The Flanders test 

With this ruling, the Court of Appeals replaced Bard with a dual-path framework for liability in cases involving injuries caused by domestic animals.  

Going forward, plaintiffs in New York state can pursue either—or both—of two legal theories: strict liability, which applies when owners knew or should have known that their animal had dangerous tendencies, or negligence, which allows recovery when the owners simply failed to take reasonable precautions under the circumstances.  

This two-pronged approach aligns New York with the majority of other states and gives injured parties more flexibility in seeking justice, as was the case for Flanders. 

You can read the full decision here. 

Flanders and the insurance implications 

This decision increases the potential of liability exposure for pet owners and will likely affect claim frequency and severity.  

New York Insurance Law Section 3421 protects consumers against breed-based discrimination. Under this statute, insurance carriers may not refuse to issue, renew or cancel a homeowners or renters policy, nor can they charge higher premiums or exclude coverage based solely on a dog’s breed. 

This prohibition applies regardless of whether the breed is considered more aggressive or high-risk. Insurers must rely on the individual behavior of a dog, not its breed classification, when making underwriting decisions. 

The change in the liability standard, coupled with the Flanders decision could lead to a spike homeowners and renters insurance premiums—or perhaps even availability issues. 

Implications for producers 

This ruling is a game-changer for insurance professionals in New York state. Here’s how it may affect your clients and your work: 

Increased exposure for pet owners. Clients with dogs may now face liability even without prior knowledge of aggressive behavior. Educate them on the importance of secure containment and proper training. 

Claims landscape shifts. Carriers are likely to see an uptick in claims involving dog-related injuries now that plaintiffs can proceed under a negligence theory. This could drive underwriting reassessments—especially in densely populated areas. 

More emphasis on risk management. Encourage clients to document pet training, control measures (e.g., signage, fencing), and compliance with local leash laws. This could be key in possible defense strategies. 

Policy reviews. While breed discrimination remains prohibited, producers should ensure policies clearly explain what coverage is available for dog-related incidents and any limitations tied to specific behaviors—not breeds. 

PIA Northeast is on the case 

PIA Northeast is monitoring the effects of this decision. We are actively assessing its impact and working to ensure that insurance producers and consumers alike are protected and well-informed.  

PIA is evaluating whether legislative or regulatory responses are appropriate and will continue to advocate for balanced policies that uphold fairness without sacrificing public safety.