The State of Pet Insurance Regulation in America: A 50-State Review

Pet insurance has become one of the fastest-growing categories of insurance in North America, with U.S. gross written premium reaching $5.68 billion in 2025 according to NAPHIA’s 2026 State of the Industry Report, a market that has more than doubled over the last five years. Yet the rules that govern what insurers must disclose, how they handle claims, and what consumers can expect if something ever goes wrong can vary dramatically from state to state.

This report compiles, in a consumer-facing format, the complete state-by-state regulatory landscape for pet insurance, including the 17 states that have adopted the NAIC Pet Insurance Model Act, the six states with related activity on the books, the 27 states plus DC with no specific protections, and the premium cost data that determines what consumers actually pay across the country.

Why this matters

NAPHIA’s 2026 State of the Industry Report shows U.S. gross written premium reached $5.68 billion in 2025, up 19.7% year-over-year, with 6.98 million pets insured at year-end. NAPHIA also reports the average annual premium for an accident-and-illness policy, the most common plan type, at $836 for dogs and $435 for cats in 2025, up from $749 and $386 a year earlier. Yet consumer awareness of how pet insurance actually works lags far behind that growth, and state regulation has only recently begun to catch up. Rising veterinary care costs are a meaningful driver: the BLS Consumer Price Index for veterinary services has outpaced general inflation every year since 2020.

Until the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted Model Act #633 in Summer 2022, there was no standardized framework for pet insurance consumer protection in the United States. Pet insurance was, and in most states still is, regulated as a generic property and casualty product, despite having underwriting characteristics, claim processes, and consumer concerns that more closely resemble human health insurance.

The result has been a patchwork of state-level approaches. California led the way in 2014 with the nation’s first pet insurance-specific statute. The NAIC followed in 2022 with a model framework. Adoption among states has accelerated through 2024, 2025, and 2026, but more than half of U.S. pet owners still live in jurisdictions with no specific pet insurance consumer protections at all. Pet insurance is not the only corner of pet care law in motion, either: the rules on whether a vet can diagnose and prescribe over video are shifting just as fast, and we track those in a companion 50-state review of veterinary telehealth laws.

The NAIC Pet Insurance Model Act, briefly

The NAIC Pet Insurance Model Act (Model #633) was adopted by the NAIC membership at its Summer 2022 National Meeting. The Model Act creates a comprehensive legal framework for pet insurance covering definitions, disclosures, policy conditions, wellness program separation, producer training, and enforcement.

For consumers, state adoption of the Model Act adds ten substantive protections. Not every adopting state enacted all ten, and several added rules the model lacks; the state-by-state comparison below shows what each state kept, dropped, and added.

The Model Act also requires insurers to disclose if the underwriting company differs from the brand name used to market the product, addressing a long-standing consumer-confusion issue in pet insurance, where brand names like ASPCA Pet Health Insurance, Hartville, and AKC Pet Insurance are marketing brands rather than actual underwriting carriers.

Which states have adopted the NAIC Pet Insurance Model Act: the state-by-state landscape

The following classification reflects the NAIC Legal Division’s Summer 2026 State Adoption Tracker for Model Act #633, published after the first edition of this report. The first edition, built on the Summer 2025 tracker, counted 13 formal adoptions and treated California, Florida, Montana, and Rhode Island as “related activity.” The Summer 2026 edition lists all four under Model Adoption, bringing the NAIC’s count to 17, and adds two “related activity” entries, Alaska and Texas, for rules that classify pet insurance for filing purposes without adding consumer protections. The tiers below follow the NAIC’s current classification.

Tier 1 — Model Act adoption (17 states)

These 17 states have enacted statutes that the NAIC Legal Division classifies as adopting Model #633 in a substantially similar manner. “Substantially similar” leaves room: free-look periods range from 10 days to 30 business days, three states have no producer-training rule, and one state’s protections sit in a regulation rather than the statute. The comparison section below lays out the differences state by state. California’s 2014 law predates the model and remains stronger in places; see the California exception.

Tier 2 — Related activity (6 states)

These states appear on the NAIC tracker for statutes, rules, or bulletins that touch pet insurance without adopting the Model Act. None of them delivers the Model Act’s consumer protections. Most simply tell insurers how to classify pet insurance for filing or licensing purposes, and Tennessee’s 2008 statute significantly predates the model.

Tier 3 — No current activity (27 states + DC)

These jurisdictions have no pet insurance-specific statute, rule, or bulletin on the NAIC tracker. Pet insurance is regulated by general property and casualty insurance code only.

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois*, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts*, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York*, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

*New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts all had live legislation in 2026, discussed below.

The California exception

California occupies a unique position in the U.S. pet insurance regulatory landscape. It was the first state to enact pet insurance-specific consumer protections (AB 2056, 2014), and in some respects its current statute provides protections stronger than the NAIC Model Act:

• 30-day free look period, double the NAIC Model Act minimum of 15 days
• Explicit civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, or $10,000 for willful violations, payable to the state
• Express authority for the Insurance Commissioner to hold hearings and adopt regulations

California amended its statute in 2024 (SB 1217, Chapter 612, signed September 26, 2024, effective January 1, 2025), which rewrote the definitions and disclosure sections and added two new sections: §12880.7, the policy-conditions section, and §12880.8, the wellness-program sales-practice section. SB 1217 brought California’s waiting-period, renewal, and wellness-program rules into line with the NAIC Model Act framework, for example, barring a previously covered condition from being reclassified as pre-existing on renewal, prohibiting a waiting period from being applied to a renewal of existing coverage, and adding wellness-program separation requirements that go further than the model’s. It left California’s longer 30-day free look (noted above) untouched, so these provisions are additive rather than in conflict. Two model provisions never made it into California’s pet insurance article: there is no producer-training requirement, and insurers are not required to name the underwriting company when it differs from the brand. The NAIC Legal Division’s Summer 2026 state page nonetheless lists California under “Model Adoption” for the first time, an acknowledgment that the amended statute now covers substantially the same ground as Model #633 while keeping its stronger free-look and penalty provisions.

Given California currently accounts for 18.1% of all U.S. insured pets per NAPHIA, the practical effect is that nearly 1 in 5 insured pets in America are covered under the strongest pet insurance regulatory regime in the country.

Florida’s 2026 reform

Florida HB 655 took effect January 1, 2026. The legislation creates Florida Statutes § 627.71545 and substantially aligns Florida’s pet insurance regulatory framework with the NAIC Model Act, with several Florida-specific provisions:

• 30-day free look period, California-style, exceeding the NAIC Model Act minimum
• Most of the Model Act’s consumer protections, standardized definitions, mandatory disclosure document, insurer burden of proof on pre-existing condition denials, 30-day max waiting period for illness, no accident waiting period, exam-based waiver, no vet exam to renew. Two pieces were left out: the model’s wellness sales-practice rules (Florida keeps only the rule that eligibility can’t depend on buying a wellness plan) and the requirement that agents be trained before they sell, which Florida softens to a duty on insurers to “ensure” training
• Reclassification, Florida’s existing framework had required pet insurance to be filed under “livestock” insurance due to historical statutory definitions; HB 655 also amends Florida’s general insurance code to recognize pet insurance as a distinct line of property insurance

Florida holds 6.2% of all U.S. insured pets per NAPHIA, making HB 655 the most significant state-level pet insurance regulatory event of 2026 by market size affected, at least until New York’s governor acts. The NAIC’s Summer 2026 state page classifies Florida as a Model Act adoption. With HB 655 in effect, California plus Florida together cover approximately a quarter of all U.S. insured pets in jurisdictions with the strongest pet insurance regulations in the country.

How each state’s law differs from the NAIC Model Act

“Adopted the Model Act” is the NAIC’s classification, not a guarantee that a state enacted the model word for word. To see what consumers in each state actually got, we read all 17 statutes (and, for Mississippi, the Insurance Department regulation that does the real work) against the text of Model #633. Four things turned out to be the same everywhere: every one of the 17 caps illness and orthopedic waiting periods at 30 days, bans waiting periods for accidents, puts the burden of proving a pre-existing-condition exclusion on the insurer, and bars an insurer from reclassifying a condition it already covered as pre-existing at renewal. Almost everything else varies. The matrix shows the provisions that differ; the notes below it list what each state dropped from the model and what it added.

What the columns mean

• Free look. How long you have after receiving the policy to return it for a refund, as long as you haven’t filed a claim. The model requires 15 days with a full refund (§4B).
• Exam waiver of waiting period. The insurer must let you skip the illness and orthopedic waiting period by having a veterinarian examine your pet after purchase, usually at your expense. The model requires it (§5B).
• No vet exam to renew. The insurer can’t make a veterinary exam a condition of renewing your policy. The model prohibits it (§5C).
• No wellness pitch during the sale. Insurers and agents may not market a routine-care wellness plan while selling, soliciting, or negotiating the insurance policy. The model prohibits it (§6A(2)); every state bans marketing a wellness plan as insurance, so this column shows only the during-the-sale ban.
• Wellness separation + “not insurance” notice. If a wellness plan is sold, buying it can’t be a condition of buying insurance, its cost and terms must be separate, it can’t duplicate the policy’s coverage, and you must get a 12-point boldface notice that it is not insurance. The model requires all of these (§6B).
• Producer trained before selling. The agent must be licensed and complete pet-insurance training (pre-existing conditions, waiting periods, insurance versus wellness plans, hereditary and chronic conditions, underwriting and renewal) before selling a policy. The model requires it (§7A).
• Underwriter named if brand differs. The insurer must tell you which carrier actually underwrites the policy when the brand you’re buying from (ASPCA, AKC, Pumpkin, and so on) isn’t the carrier. The model requires it (§4A(5)).
• Penalties in the chapter. Whether the pet insurance law itself spells out consequences for an insurer that violates it. “By reference” means it points to the state’s general insurance penalties; “—” means the chapter is silent, though general insurance-code remedies still apply. The model leaves this to a state cross-reference (§9).
• Coverage-start rule. Coverage must take effect by 12:01 a.m. on the second day after purchase, with a 15-day option only if the policy has no illness waiting period and no premium is charged before coverage starts. This is not in the model; the states marked ✓ added it.

✓ means the state enacted the provision as the model requires; — means it did not. “(reg.)” means the protection is in Mississippi’s Insurance Department regulation rather than its statute. Verified October 2026 against each state’s code.

The pattern across all 17

Three things stand out. First, the free look is the provision states most often strengthened: eleven states went to 30 days instead of the model’s 15, and Maryland alone went shorter. Second, the provision most often dropped is the model’s ban on pitching a wellness plan during the insurance sale; only Washington, Maine, Montana, and Rhode Island kept it, which is why a routine-care add-on so often appears in the same checkout flow as the policy. Third, the additions cluster around timing and money: five jurisdictions added a rule the model lacks, requiring coverage to take effect by 12:01 a.m. on the second day after purchase (with a 15-day option only if no illness waiting period applies and no premium is earned before the effective date), which closes a gap where an insurer could collect premium and choose its own start date.

State-by-state notes

California

Beyond the model: a 30-day minimum free look that must refund any policy fee as well as premium (Ins. Code §12880.2); explicit civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation and $10,000 for willful violations, with a hearing process (§§12880.3–12880.4); the coverage-start rule (§12880.7(b)(4)); and a wellness section stronger than the model’s, requiring separate payment processing, identification of the program’s provider, and a sales-process disclosure that the policy can be bought without it (§12880.8). Dropped from the model: California’s pet insurance article contains no producer-training requirement, and its disclosure list omits the requirement to name the underwriting company when it differs from the brand. The model’s during-sale marketing ban is replaced by a requirement that marketing materials for the two products be kept separate.

Delaware

Beyond the model: 30-day free look (18 Del. C. §8804(b)). Dropped: the during-sale wellness marketing ban; Delaware bars marketing a wellness program as insurance only (§8806(a)). Penalties are by cross-reference to 18 Del. C. §329 (§8809).

Florida

Beyond the model: 30-day free look (§627.71545(7)), and HB 655 reclassified pet insurance from Florida’s livestock category to a line of property insurance. Dropped: the entire wellness sales-practice section. Florida keeps the model’s definition of a wellness program and the rule that eligibility can’t depend on buying one (§627.71545(9)(e)), but has no ban on marketing a wellness program as insurance, no separate-pricing rule, and no “not insurance” notice. Producer training is weaker: the statute requires insurers to “ensure” agents are trained (§627.71545(10)) rather than barring sales until an agent is licensed and trained. There is no penalty provision.

Hawaii

Beyond the model: 30-day free look (HRS §431:33-104(b)); producers must hold a property and casualty license specifically (§431:33-107(a)); and Act 79 reclassified pet insurance as property insurance, which the Insurance Division confirmed in a July 2026 memorandum ending the old marine-and-transportation filing practice. Dropped: the during-sale wellness marketing ban. Penalties are by reference to chapter 431 (§431:33-109).

Louisiana

The closest of the 2023 enactments to the model on substance: 15-day free look (R.S. 22:1372(B)), training before selling with a major-line license (22:1375). Dropped: the during-sale wellness marketing ban, and the chapter has no penalty provision.

Maine

Maine enacted its law in 2022, before the NAIC finalized the model, so it tracks the draft: 15-day free look (24-A M.R.S. §3155(2)) and the during-sale wellness marketing ban kept (§3157(1)). Differences: the accident rule is worded more narrowly than the model, prohibiting waiting periods “for illnesses or orthopedic conditions resulting from an accident” rather than for accidents outright (§3156(2)); producer licensing is spelled out as property, accident and health, or personal lines (§3158(3)), with no reciprocity clause for out-of-state training. Beyond the model: an express civil-penalty authority for the superintendent (§3159).

Maryland

The only adopting state whose departures mostly cut against the consumer. Weaker than the model: a 10-day return window with only a pro-rata refund, versus the model’s 15 days and full refund (Ins. §19-1104(b)); the accident rule is worded narrowly, as in Maine (§19-1105(b)(1)(iii)); there is no producer-training requirement; and no during-sale wellness marketing ban. Beyond the model: the statute requires the insured to pay the veterinarian first and claim afterward (§19-1105(c)), writing the reimbursement model into law, and insurers must disclose all exclusions rather than the model’s four categories (§19-1104(a)(1)). The subtitle has no penalty provision.

Mississippi

The statute (Miss. Code §§83-87-1 to 83-87-9) contains only definitions, disclosures, producer-licensing authority, and rulemaking authority. Every policy protection lives in the Insurance Department’s Pet Insurance Regulation (19 Miss. Code R. Part 5, Chapter 6, effective January 1, 2024): a 30-day free look (Rule 6.03(B)), the waiting-period caps, exam waiver, burden of proof, renewal-exam ban, and the coverage-start rule (Rule 6.04), the wellness sales-practice rules (6.05), and penalties of up to $5,000 per violation (6.07). Differences: producer training is a one-hour continuing-education requirement at license renewal (6.06) rather than training before the first sale, and the during-sale wellness marketing ban is absent. Because these rules are regulatory rather than statutory, the Commissioner can change them without the legislature.

Montana

Tracks the model closely, 15-day free look (MCA 33-24-404(2)), during-sale wellness ban kept (33-24-406(1)(b)). Beyond the model: the most specific training rule in the country, two hours of training repeated every 24 months, with the insurer required to obtain verification before a producer sells and to keep the records (33-24-407). Penalties are by reference (33-24-409).

Nebraska

Beyond the model: 30-day free look (Neb. Rev. Stat. 44-6505), and a violation is defined as an unfair trade practice under the Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act (44-6510). Dropped: the during-sale wellness marketing ban (44-6507).

New Hampshire

Beyond the model: 30-day free look (RSA 402-P:3, II), which the statute says does not apply to renewals. Dropped: any producer-training requirement; the chapter only authorizes producers licensed in a major line to sell (402-P:2, V). No during-sale wellness ban and no penalty provision. The once-covered rule is slightly narrower: a covered condition stays non-pre-existing at renewal “provided there was no break in coverage” (402-P:1, VI(b)).

New Jersey

Beyond the model: a 30-business-day free look, the longest in the country (P.L. 2025, c. 224, §5(b)); the coverage-start rule (§6(b)); and producers must hold an active life, health, personal lines, or property and casualty line of authority (§8(e)). Dropped: the exam-based waiver of waiting periods. New Jersey caps waiting periods at 30 days but, alone among the 17, does not require insurers to let a consumer waive them with a vet exam. The during-sale wellness ban is also absent. Penalties are by reference (§9). Effective January 1, 2027.

Ohio

Beyond the model: 30-day free look, exercised by notice rather than by physically returning the policy (R.C. 3970.04(B)). Dropped: the ban on requiring a veterinary exam as a condition of renewal; Ohio bars applying a waiting period at renewal (3970.05(C)(5)) but says nothing about renewal exams. The wellness disclosure omits the model’s 12-point boldface and Department-contact requirements (3970.06(C)(6)), and the during-sale ban is absent. Penalties are left to rules (3970.08).

Pennsylvania

Beyond the model: 30-day free look (40 Pa.C.S. §4704); an advertising rule requiring any pet insurance ad to state whether premiums or coverage change with claim history, species or breed, age, or a move (§4707); a requirement that insurers accept claims electronically or by mail (§4706(e)); and explicit penalties of up to $5,000 per violation plus license suspension or revocation and restitution (§4710). Dropped: the during-sale wellness ban (§4708(a)).

Rhode Island

Keeps the model’s 15-day free look (R.I. Gen. Laws §27-83-3) and the during-sale wellness marketing ban (§27-83-5(a)). Beyond the model: the coverage-start rule, with an express bar on earning premium before the effective date when the 15-day option is used (§27-83-4). Penalties are by reference to §42-14-16 (§27-83-7).

Vermont

The strongest consumer additions of any state. Beyond the model: 30-day free look (8 V.S.A. §7154(b)); a 180-day lookback on pre-existing conditions: only vet advice, treatment, or symptoms in the 180 days before the effective date (or during a waiting period) can make a condition pre-existing, where the model looks back without limit (§7153(c)(6)(A)); the coverage-start rule (§7155(b)(3)); and three rules no other state has: policyholders may change coverage without cancellation and reissue (§7155(g)), coverage can’t be suspended for nonpayment before renewal or cancellation (§7155(h)), and unpaid premium can’t be deducted from a claim payment (§7155(i)). Dropped: the during-sale wellness ban. Penalties are by reference to 8 V.S.A. §3661.

Washington

The closest to a verbatim adoption: 15-day free look (RCW 48.205.040(2)), during-sale wellness ban kept (48.205.060(1)), training before selling (48.205.070). The only gap is that the chapter contains no penalty provision; general insurance-code remedies apply (48.205.010(2)).

The six “related activity” states

None of these has adopted any Model Act provision. What the NAIC tracker records is a classification or licensing rule, which tells insurers how to file or who may sell, not what a policy must contain.

• Alaska: Division of Insurance Bulletin B 16-06 (2016) assigns pet insurance a product code under the inland marine line for filing purposes. No policy requirements.
• Idaho: Idaho Code §41-1003(4) lists pet insurance as a “limited lines” product, creating a limited-lines producer license category. No policy requirements.
• New Mexico: N.M. Stat. §59A-7-4(AA) lists pet insurance among the kinds of property insurance. No policy requirements.
• Tennessee: Tenn. Code §§56-7-2101 to 56-7-2103, dating to 1992, allow insurers to offer pet policies covering care by a licensed veterinarian, permit exclusions and deductibles, and require the annual premium and benefits to appear on the face of the policy. Nothing on pre-existing conditions, waiting periods, or a free look.
• Texas: 28 Tex. Admin. Code §5.5008(25) (TDI Order 2023-7965) classifies pet insurance as a non-filed inland marine class, meaning rates and policy forms are not filed with the Department at all.
• Utah: Utah Code §31A-23a-106(2)(c)(xi) makes pet insurance a limited line of authority for producer licensing. No policy requirements.

What pet insurance costs consumers state by state

State-level pet insurance premium data was triangulated from two independent sources: MoneyGeek’s 2026 analysis and its state-level cost reports (modeled premiums for a standardized 6-year-old Labrador Retriever and 7-year-old Ragdoll under a $5,000 annual limit, $500 deductible, 80% reimbursement policy, drawn from 67,000+ pet profiles across 18 carriers) and Insurify’s June 2026 release (one-year rolling median quotes through May 2026, drawn from 250,000+ quotes from 10+ partner carriers, reported separately for dogs and cats; Insurify’s national medians are $43 a month for dogs and $23 for cats).

Sources: MoneyGeek (2026 state cost reports, standardized-profile methodology); Insurify (June 2026 release, one-year rolling medians through May 2026). Reg. Status follows the NAIC’s Summer 2026 state page. *New York: legislature passed bills in 2024 and 2025 (both vetoed) and again in 2026 (awaiting the governor). †The two sources diverge more here, reflecting higher methodological uncertainty in small-population states.

Observations on the cost-regulation relationship

Both data sources confirm the same core finding: there is no consistent relationship between state regulation and premium cost. Washington State, a Model Act state, is the second-most-expensive jurisdiction in the country on MoneyGeek’s measure (after DC). Mississippi, which has the same protections by regulation, is one of the cheapest on both. Of the five highest-cost jurisdictions by MoneyGeek’s combined figure (DC, Washington, Massachusetts, Colorado, California), two are Model Act states and three have no specific regulation at all. Insurify’s dog premiums tell the same story from the other direction: Alaska, Massachusetts, and DC are the three most expensive and none has a pet insurance statute, while Delaware and New Hampshire, both Model Act states, sit right behind them.

This is the expected result for any well-functioning insurance market. Premium pricing reflects expected claims cost in a region, which is driven by veterinary cost variation, and veterinary costs are tied to cost of living, density of specialty practices, and labor markets. MoneyGeek’s data shows a roughly 90% gap between the cheapest state (Alabama, about $37 per month) and the most expensive jurisdiction (Washington D.C., about $71 per month), consistent with those veterinary-cost and cost-of-living differences. State regulation governs disclosures, claim handling, and consumer rights, not pricing.

The takeaway for consumers: paying more for pet insurance does not buy stronger consumer protections, and stronger consumer protections do not necessarily mean higher premiums. What your state’s pet insurance guarantees, standardized definitions, a free look period, an insurer burden of proof on pre-existing-condition denials, depends on legislation, not on what you pay.

It is worth noting what this regulation does not do: the Model Act standardizes how pre-existing conditions are defined and handled, but it does not require insurers to cover them. A handful of state proposals have sought to go further, Minnesota’s HF 780 (2023), for example, would have required pet insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, but those measures have not advanced into law. Because pre-existing-condition exclusions are central to how the product is priced, a coverage mandate of that kind would likely raise premiums substantially.

The biggest markets without regulation

With Florida’s 2026 reform in effect, the largest pet insurance markets without specific consumer protections currently in force are listed below. New Jersey, now the 5th-largest U.S. market, enacted its law in January 2026, but it does not take effect until January 1, 2027, so it is shown here for reference. Texas appears on the NAIC tracker only for a 2023 filing rule that classifies pet insurance as inland marine; that rule adds no consumer protections, so Texas stays on this list.

Share-of-insured-pets figures are from NAPHIA’s 2026 State of the Industry Report, full 50-state + DC distribution, data as of December 31, 2025.

In these states, pet insurance consumers do not have the benefit of a statutorily required free look period, standardized definitions of pre-existing and chronic conditions, a required disclosure document, an explicit insurer burden of proof on pre-existing condition exclusions, a maximum waiting period for illness, a prohibition on accident waiting periods, a prohibition on vet exams as a renewal condition, mandatory wellness program separation, or required producer training.

While some insurers may already include these types of consumer protections, coverage in these states is governed only by general state insurance code, the specific terms of the insurer’s policy, and the consumer’s diligence in reading the fine print.

How the regulatory environment is shifting

The pace of state adoption has accelerated significantly since the NAIC Model Act was finalized in 2022:

• 2022: NAIC Model Act adopted (Summer); Maine becomes the first state to enact
• 2023: Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Washington adopt, six states in one year
• 2024: Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Vermont adopt the Model Act (Ohio via SB 175, signed October 2024, effective January 22, 2025); New York legislature passes pet insurance bill, Governor Hochul vetoes
• 2025: California’s SB 1217 updates take effect January 1; Hawaii enacts Act 79 (signed May 19, effective January 1, 2026); Florida enacts HB 655 (effective January 1, 2026); Montana enacts HB 78 (signed April 3); Rhode Island enacts SB 649/HB 5569 (effective January 1, 2026); New York legislature passes pet insurance bill again, Hochul vetoes again in October
• 2026: Florida’s HB 655, Rhode Island’s Pet Insurance Act, and Hawaii’s Act 79 take effect January 1; New Jersey enacts its Pet Insurance Act on January 12 (effective January 1, 2027); Illinois HB 3595 passes the House 104–0 in April, then loses its pet insurance language in the Senate; New York’s rewritten A.11164/S.10225 passes both chambers (May 28 and June 2) and awaits the governor; the NAIC’s Summer 2026 state page lists California, Florida, Montana, and Rhode Island as Model Act adoptions for the first time, bringing the count to 17; Hawaii’s insurance commissioner reclassifies pet insurance from marine and transportation to property insurance (Memorandum 2026-5PC, July 31); Puerto Rico adopts the Model Act (Ley 186, August 17); Massachusetts’s H.1186 stalls in House Ways and Means

In just over four years, the number of states the NAIC counts as Model Act adopters has gone from one (California, whose 2014 law predates the model) to 17 states with meaningful pet insurance regulation in 2026, and 16 of those 17 laws were enacted in 2022 or later. The directional trend is clear: more states adopt the Model Act each year, which steadily widens the gap in consumer protections between residents of regulated and unregulated states, and pushes national carriers toward building their policies and disclosures to the stricter standards even where the law does not yet require it.

The conspicuous exception remains New York, where the legislature has now passed pet insurance legislation three years running and 7.4% of America’s insured pets are waiting on the governor’s pen. Illinois shows the other way a bill can fail: it can pass one chamber unanimously and still vanish inside an unrelated piece of legislation.

What to do if you live in an unregulated state

If your state appears in the Tier 2 or Tier 3 lists above (related activity only, or no current activity), the burden of due diligence on a pet insurance purchase falls more heavily on you than it would on a consumer in a Model Act state. The same goes for New Jersey residents until January 1, 2027. Six specific steps help close the gap.

Frequently asked questions