Welcome to RVForums.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest RV Community on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, review campgrounds
  • Get the most out of the RV Lifestyle
  • Invite everyone to RVForums.com and let's have fun
  • Commercial/Vendors welcome

FYI Full Time RV Life & Park Dog Policies

Welcome to RVForums.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends and let's have fun
  • Commercial/Vendors welcome
  • Friendliest RV community on the web

Adeakins

RVF Regular
Joined
Nov 12, 2020
Messages
20
This falls under the heading of; “Has anyone else run into this before?”

We are going into 3 years of full time living in our “mobile home”. Like 85% of an estimated full time RV population of over 2 million, we have a dog. A small dog. And, just one dog at that. While booking camps along the route of our seasonal migration from Maine to Florida, we ran into something not encountered — or, even heard of — before. One of the camps we booked into hit us with a requirement to show the declaration page of our insurance policy where it must state that we are covered for “dog bites”. Now, we have just about all the insurance Good Sam sells (albeit issued through its affiliates) and Good Sam is arguably the largest seller of full time RV insurance. They, like every other insurer I’ve looked at, do not list everything their liability policy covers. Rather, they list any exceptions to that coverage. This is opposite of traditional “home owner” policies. So, the RV policy does not have a declarations page where “dog bites” are specifically covered (and, not listed, presumed not to be covered). That would suggest this camp does not want business from dog-owning full timers. That’s a big chunk of market opportunity one would think. My wife and I camp host when there is an interesting opportunity and we’ve seen how the current wave of LLC buyouts of family parks has brought a more corporate “tint” to how parks interact with customers. And, as well, long time owners have been drawn into seminars where business “experts” urge them to “maximize” profits and reduce risks by pushing them into campers. (You know; “sign here and here and now here…). But, this? Seems a bit too much. So, back to my opening question … has anyone else run into this?
 
Nope, never ran into it. I've had to sign the liability release, stating that my dog(s) shots are up to date. But never been asked to prove it.
 
Park owners are going to respond to what they are faced with. With all of the new first time campers hitting the road, my guess is this particular park owner had a camper get bit by another campers dog, and was sued. Regardless of who was at fault, this is the society we are in now where no one wants to be responsible for themselves, but everyone else should be. Too many new campers with no idea what they are doing or any desire to be responsible for themselves or their animals. If you want to see how bad it is, search Facebook for Full time RV page. It is an eye opener! In answer to your question, I have seen many parks changing their policies in the last 2 years and some just getting out of the business due to the added liabilities.
 
Nope, never ran into it. I've had to sign the liability release, stating that my dog(s) shots are up to date. But never been asked to prove it.
I get the having to show shot records. We carry ours with us and anyone is welcome to see them. But, what is being asked for here basically blows full timers off as the insurance carriers for full timers don’t provide the documents that line up with this requirement.
 
Adeakins - no argument there, and is likely the point. Make a requirement that is not possible to fulfill has the same effect as banning that type of camper all together without actually saying it. They also may not realize the insurance limitations and could be negotiated with. Your mileage will vary on that one, and you always have the option to decline and move on. Voting with your feet is sometimes the best way to get bad policy changed.
 
Park owners are going to respond to what they are faced with. With all of the new first time campers hitting the road, my guess is this particular park owner had a camper get bit by another campers dog, and was sued. Regardless of who was at fault, this is the society we are in now where no one wants to be responsible for themselves, but everyone else should be. Too many new campers with no idea what they are doing or any desire to be responsible for themselves or their animals. If you want to see how bad it is, search Facebook for Full time RV page. It is an eye opener! In answer to your question, I have seen many parks changing their policies in the last 2 years and some just getting out of the business due to the added liabilities.
The issue here is the requirement for how the coverage is presented. I understand the need for the coverage and, according to Good Sam, I am, in fact, covered. Unlike traditional homeowner policies, there is no list of what is covered; only what is excepted from coverage. So, either the insurance carriers — and I have pressed Good Sam — need to change or the camp owners need to be better educated regarding the difference between sticks and bricks policies versus full time RV policies.
 
Adeakins - no argument there, and is likely the point. Make a requirement that is not possible to fulfill has the same effect as banning that type of camper all together without actually saying it. They also may not realize the insurance limitations and could be negotiated with. Your mileage will vary on that one, and you always have the option to decline and move on. Voting with your feet is sometimes the best way to get bad policy changed.
It’s an educational problem that, unfortunately, not helped by current Campground management theory d’jour.
 
It’s an educational problem that, unfortunately, not helped by current Campground management theory d’jour.

I should add that — and as I’ve pointed out to Good Sam — the insurers might want to get out in front of this as well. They share the customer here. The full-time RV population is growing, but issues like this can stymie that growth. Voting with your feet is something I do on occasion. And, where permitted, I leave a review as to why.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top