Dogs Trust, after initially insuring XL Bullies, breaks trust with insurees

There is a reason why Lloyds of London insurers want 18 times more to cover a Staffordshire pit bull & 36 times more to cover an XL Bully

LONDON,  U.K.–– Dogs Trust,  with the Royal SPCA one of the most aggressively pit bull-pushing British charities,  appears to have learned the hard way why insurance brokers listed by Lloyd’s of London typically charge eighteen times as much as the Dogs Trust Companion Club charged in 2024-2025 to cover liability for pit bulls,  and charge twice as much as that to cover liability for the banned XL Bully pit bull variant.

Lloyd’s of London insurers work to make a profit.  Dogs Trust and the RSPCA since the passage of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 have worked increasingly hard to rehome pit bulls abandoned by previous owners,  likely most often for dangerous behavior,  though owner surrenders come under a variety of pretexts.

XL Bullies broke the bank

Providing liability insurance for Staffordshire pit bulls,  exempted from the Dangerous Dogs Act,  might have been viewed by Dogs Trust as what retailers call a “loss leader,”  to entice potential adopters.

Insuring XL Bullies,  the super-sized pit bull variants also known as “American Bulldogs,”  or “American Bullies” for short,  broke the bank.

Banned in the United Kingdom since the beginning of 2024,  XL Bullies already in the U.K. could be kept if licensed,  sterilized,  and insured for up to £1 million in third-party liability.

Such policies do not cover injuries to either XL Bully owners or members of their own households.

Even so,  private insurers––other than the Lloyd’s of London group,  specializing in high-risk coverage since 1688––would not cover XL Bullies.

(See Two arrested after baby boy is third U.K. “XL Bully” pit bull death of 2025.)

Stuck with uninsurable dogs

Most British insurers apparently will not insure any pit bulls,  including Staffordshires,  who have killed 23 people since the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 banned four other pit bull variants:  the American Pit Bull Terrier,  the Dogo Argentino,  the Fila Brasiliero,  and the Japanese Tosa,

Neither will most American insurance groups knowingly cover pit bulls,  the major exception being State Farm,  which manages to spread the risk among a much larger number of dog-keeping home owners than any other company.

Dogs Trust,  a longtime no-kill organization operating 21 “rehoming centers” around the United Kingdom and another in Ireland,  where XL Bullies are also banned,  saw itself becoming stuck with kennels full of XL Bullies who were both unadoptable and uninsurable

Therefore Dogs Trust opted to step in where even the Lloyd’s of London insurers feared to tread,  offering third-party liability insurance through the Dogs Trust Companion Club,  which otherwise provides discounts on training and access to a veterinary advice telephone service,  and throws in subscriptions to the Dogs Trust in-house promotional magazine.

Lost $10 million in first year of scheme

In 2024,  according to the Dogs Trust filing with the British Charities Commission,  Dogs Trust reported a loss of more than £7.5 million,  or nearly $10 million in U.S. dollars.

In 2025,  Dogs Trust continued to offer £1 million in third-party dog liability insurance at just £25 for the year,  equivalent to $33 in U.S. dollars,  “subject to exclusions such as a history of aggression.”

Lloyd’s of London insurers,  by contrast,  quoted circa £600 pounds,  or $794 in U.S. dollars,  to cover ordinary pit bulls,  and £1,200 pounds,  nearly $1,600 in U.S. dollars,  to cover an XL Bully.

Dogs Trust losses in 2025 have not yet been disclosed,  but may have been substantially higher.

Responded Dogs Trust,  “We have made the difficult decision to remove third-party public liability insurance from Companion Club,  from 1 July 2026.

“Unsustainable”

“When the U.K. government banned XL Bully type dogs in 2024,”  Dogs Trust explained,  “the legislation required owners to have third-party public liability insurance in order for dogs to be exempted.

“With no other insurance product of this type available in the U.K.,  we stepped in and continued to extend our Companion Club insurance benefit to cover exempted dogs.

“But as we communicated to the government at the time,  it was never a long-term solution and continuing to shoulder the financial burden of this legislation is simply not sustainable.

“Extending our insurance to cover XL Bully type dogs came at a cost,”  Dogs Trust admitted.  “Companion Club subscriptions doubled as owners,  who had no other choice to keep their dog safe,  joined the scheme.

The more pit bulls covered,  the more the payouts

“But as companions increased,  so did insurance claims,  leading to a significant increase in our costs.

As a charity,  it is no longer sustainable to offer this benefit.”

Why not?

U.S. data affords a clue,  though insurance payouts to U.K. pit bull victims tend to be substantially less because the national health system absorbs most of the costs of medical care and disability:

• L.A. Animal Services’ pays $31.85 million to victims of shelter dog attacks
• Fatal dog attack in Miami Gardens echoes $21.5 million case in King County
• $21.5 million settlement from negligent county to jogger mauled by pit bull

XL Bully body count rising

Dogs Trust assured Companion Club members that it has appealed to government at all levels “relentlessly to ensure there is an alternative solution that helps dogs meet the requirements of” the addition of XL Bully pit bulls to the list of breeds banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

“They have reassured us that any solution they propose will be in place before 30 June 2026,”  Dogs Trust said,  apparently still hopeful that British taxpayers can somehow be made to subsidize adopting banned dangerous dogs.

“Owners of exempted dogs will be contacted by the relevant government to let them know next steps,”  Dogs Trust said,  which may mean impoundments of uninsured XL Bullies.

Among the fourteen United Kingdom residents known to have been killed by dogs since XL Bullies were banned,  12 were killed by a total of 14 XL Bullies,  with one victim each killed by a Rottweiler and a Malinois.  Most of the XL Bully killers were reportedly legally “grandfathered.”

Rescued XL Bully mauled a baby

Underscoring the risk associated with pit bulls in general and the extra-large XL Bully variant in particular,  Jordan Williams,  19,  escaped jail in Canterbury Crown Court,  Robert Folker of the Daily Mail reported on March 10,  2026,  for “rescuing” an XL Bully who then “mauled a baby.

“The child,  who cannot be named,  was airlifted to hospital and placed in a medically induced coma after the attack at a home in Hawkinge,  Kent,  in December 2024,”  Folker wrote.

“Jordan Williams,  then aged 18,  was in his bedroom when the pet bit the eight-month-old in the head and face, leaving her with two skull fractures and brain hemorrhages.

“It later emerged Williams knew the XL bully was a risk to children and had bitten him the year before as he tried to intervene in a fight with another dog over food,”  Folker continued.

Witnesses could not stop the attack

“Following the earlier incident,  Williams was issued with a community resolution that included a condition the dog must not be left unattended or unsupervised in the presence of a child at any time,”  recounted Folker.

A female witness,  believed to be the victim’s mother,  and an older woman were present during the attack,  but were unable to stop it.

The mauling came,  said Folker,  after the baby “had been moved from a lap to the floor.  This dog pounced on the child,  biting her head and face.

“The baby’s injuries,  which also included thigh tissue damage,  were so serious that she had to be airlifted to King’s College Hospital.

“The youngster spent three weeks in hospital,  but was said to have made a ‘remarkable recovery,’  meeting and exceeding developmental milestones.

Responded to request to “save” the dog

The XL Bully was euthanized.  Jordan Williams “pleaded guilty to being the owner of a dog that caused injury while dangerously out of control.”

Added Folker,  “The court heard he had acquired [the XL Bully],  aged just 17,  after responding to a request to ‘save’ the dog from the possibility of being put down when new laws on owning and selling the breed were being brought into force.

‘Williams obtained an exemption certificate online and insurance as required under the legislation.

“He allowed the dog to sleep in his bed but admitted he did not trust anyone other than himself to walk it because of its strength.”

“Did not like being muzzled”

But the XL Bully “did not like being muzzled in public – another restriction imposed by law – and so his walking became limited to a private field.

“In the month before the attack,  the court was told the dog’s only exercise came from playing.”

Finished Folker,  “Williams, who is on benefits,  was handed a six-month custodial term suspended for 12 months with 150 hours of unpaid work.

“He was also disqualified from keeping a dog for six years and ordered to pay £200 towards prosecution costs within six months.

“Although it was not said during the sentencing hearing,”  Folker mentioned,  “Kent Police has previously confirmed that Williams,  having been bitten by Hunter,  was asked to voluntarily surrender the animal to be put down,  but he declined.”

49 sheep

A more frequent cause of dog third party liability insurance losses meanwhile came before the Ipswich Crown Court,  where Linda Lawrence,  65,  stood accused of allowing her two German shepherds to kill 35 sheep and injure 14 more on July 18,  2025 at Assington Green.

Pleading innocent,  Lawrence “was released on bail on condition that she did not own,  or would be in control or in charge of any dogs,”  pending trial,  Andrew Levy reported for MSN.com.

“Updated laws are coming into force on March 18,  2026,”  Money & Lifestyle assistant editor Neil Shaw warned British dog owners,  “extending police powers and meaning dog owners can face huge penalties if their pet breaks the rules.”

Explained Carolyn Menteith,  representing the Tails.com dog food company,  “The National Sheep Association surveyed their members last year and an extraordinary 87% of them reported having experienced a dog attack on their sheep in the previous 12 months.

What “worrying” livestock means

“Few owners who don’t live in the country know what the law says,  or what it means,”  Menteith told Shaw,  “and far too many assume that because their dog has a good recall and is a lovely natured dog,  that the dog won’t chase or hurt livestock.

“But a dog doesn’t even have to chase sheep to break the law,”  Menteith pointed out.

“The original legislation, Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 was designed to protect livestock in the case of ‘worrying’ by dogs – but hardly anyone knows exactly what ‘worrying’ means,”  Menteith continued.

“The Act says ‘worrying’ is defined by ‘Attacking livestock or chasing livestock in such a way as may reasonably be expected to cause injury or suffering to the livestock or,  in the case of females, abortion,  or loss or diminution in their produce.’

“Being at large,  not on a lead or otherwise under close control,”  Menteith said,  “in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep,”  could constitute a violation.

“More dogs than ever before”

“The amendment has come into place,”  Menteith continued,  “because there are more dogs than ever before––and more people are taking their dogs out into the country,  so a law from 1953 was no longer appropriate.”

Under the 1953 law,  the maximum fine “was limited to £1,000 in England and Wales,”  Menteith noted.  “Scotland changed their law in 2021 to increase fines up to £40,000 and include 12 months imprisonment,”  while there is no longer a maximum fine in England and Wales.

“The police will have stronger enforcement and investigative powers to find and identify dogs who have attacked livestock,”  Menteith recited,  “and they can detain the dog if they think it could be a danger.  In addition,  there are clearer definitions around ‘attacking’ and ‘worrying’ to recognize that causing animals stress is enough to injure or kill;  the Act will apply on public roads and paths that cross farmland or countryside;  and more animals are included under the heading of livestock,  including llamas and alpacas.”

“Assumed their dog wouldn’t chase”

Added Menteith,  “78% of the [dog owners] surveyed by the National Sheep Association after incidents involving livestock said that they had assumed their dog wouldn’t chase,  with a quarter saying they thought their dog had good enough recall.”

The new law,  Menteith emphasized,   “means keeping your dog on a lead anywhere you might encounter livestock––even if you can’t see any––no matter how good your dog’s recall is.

“You are not just protecting the livestock,”  Menteith reminded.  “You are protecting your dog. Every year there are heartbreaking stories of owners whose dogs have been shot by farmers because the dogs were worrying their sheep or other animals.

“The legality of doing so is a little ‘shades of grey,’”  Menteith said,  “and in the eyes of the law [shooting a dog] has to be as a last resort,  but none of that matters if your dog is dead.”

Please donate to support our work:

www.animals24-7.org/donate/