SHB 1078
In CommitteeHouse
Pet insurance
Concerning pet insurance.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill establishes new rules for pet insurance in Washington State, including limits on waiting periods, protections against cancellation due to a pet’s age or new health conditions, and requirements for handling preexisting conditions and policy renewals. It also ensures continuity of coverage when an insurer shifts business between affiliated companies.
- Pet insurers may exclude coverage for preexisting conditions, but must prove the exclusion applies when a claim is denied.
- Waiting periods for illnesses or orthopedic conditions (not accident-related) can be up to 30 days, but waiting periods for accidents are banned.
- Insurers must offer a way to waive waiting periods after a vet exam (paid by the policyholder unless the insurer covers it).
- Insurers cannot require a vet exam to renew a policy, and cannot cancel or refuse renewal based on a pet’s age or new health conditions (e.g., chronic, orthopedic, or hereditary issues).
- If an insurer stops offering pet insurance through one company and shifts business to an affiliated company, current policyholders must be offered continued coverage without new waiting periods or exams.
Who is affected
- Pet owners — Pet owners who buy or renew pet insurance policies will benefit from clearer rules on preexisting conditions, waiting periods, and protections against cancellation based on a pet's health changes or age.
- Pet insurance companies — Must follow new rules about policy terms, waiting periods, and renewal practices; may need to adjust underwriting processes to comply with new restrictions.
- Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner — May need to verify compliance with new standards when reviewing or approving pet insurance policy forms.
- Veterinarians — Veterinarians may be asked to conduct medical exams to waive waiting periods, though they are not required to do so under this law.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Prohibits insurers from canceling or refusing renewal based on development of chronic, orthopedic, congenital, or hereditary conditions — protecting pet owners from losing coverage when their pets develop costly, long-term health issues, which is especially critical for older pets and breeds prone to genetic disorders.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(b)(i)-(v)Bars age-based policy cancellations or non-renewals — preventing insurers from dropping coverage as pets age, which is vital for senior pet owners who rely on coverage for age-related conditions and may struggle to find affordable alternatives.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(a)Ensures continuity of coverage when insurers shift business between affiliated entities without imposing new waiting periods or exams — preventing coverage gaps and administrative barriers that could leave pets uninsured during transitions.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(7)Caps illness/orthopedic waiting periods at 30 days and bans accident waiting periods — reducing the time before coverage begins, which improves affordability and predictability for pet owners facing unexpected injuries.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)Requires policies to include a waiting period waiver option upon vet exam — giving consumers a path to reduce coverage delays, though the cost burden remains with policyholders unless insurers voluntarily cover it.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)-(c)
Potential Concerns (3)
Mandates that waiting period waivers for illnesses/orthopedic conditions require a vet exam paid by the policyholder unless the insurer voluntarily covers it — effectively shifting costs to consumers and creating a barrier to coverage for those unable or unwilling to pay for exams.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)Allows insurers to set examination specifications that may unreasonably restrict consumers’ ability to waive waiting periods — potentially leading to de facto denials of coverage despite the waiver mechanism, disproportionately affecting low-income or rural pet owners with limited vet access.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(d)Shifts the burden of proof to consumers to demonstrate that a preexisting condition exclusion does not apply to a denied claim — placing an evidentiary burden on policyholders during disputes, which may disadvantage those without medical records or legal resources.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and middle-income pet owners benefit significantly — especially those with older pets or breeds prone to chronic conditions. They gain protection against arbitrary cancellations and coverage gaps, but may still face out-of-pocket exam costs that limit access to the waiting period waiver.
Senior pet owners (especially those with pets over 7–10 years) gain strong protections against age-based cancellations and coverage denials for age-related conditions — a major win for a group often priced out of pet insurance. However, they may be less likely to pursue vet exams due to cost or mobility barriers.
Insurers face increased underwriting and administrative costs (e.g., verifying preexisting condition exclusions, managing waiver exams), but avoid major profit losses since the bill preserves the ability to exclude preexisting conditions and charge for exams. Large insurers with scale may absorb costs more easily than small providers.
Vets gain optional income from exam-based waiting period waivers, but are not obligated to participate and may face increased administrative work without compensation. Rural or under-resourced clinics may see little impact due to lower pet insurance penetration.
The Office of the Insurance Commissioner gains expanded oversight authority but faces minimal fiscal burden — the bill’s fiscal impact estimate is “minimal,” and enforcement is likely low-cost given the narrow scope. No significant burden on state resources.