What's More Risk - Tenant with 2 cats vs 1 dog (California)?

[Tricia O'Brien]

I have a rental home in Modesto CA (single family home - 3 beds/2 bath ) with a vacancy I want to fill by Thanksgiving.  Many of the applicants through my property manager have 2 cats or 1 dog. Initially, I wanted to take 1 cat only, no dogs, to minimize the risk of property damages, but now I'm thinking of expanding my criteria to get the vacancy  filled.  How can I minimize the risk of losing $ ?  My property manager requires people with pets to pay a pet deposit of a few hundred dollars and have renters insurance that covers the animal.  What can I do to protect myself against the possibility of the pet causing $4-$5K in damage to the carpeting and/or yard ?  Can I specify that the renters insurance covers up to $5K in property damage and $300K liability? Is one dog more risk than 2 cats?  What about $50/month pet rent in addition to the pet deposit ?  Is that realistic in the Central Valley of California? Any replies would be appreciated! Thanks.

[Michele Fischer]

I would always take dogs over cats.  Cats can cause more monetary and time consuming damage to flooring.

We collect pet rent, a high deposit, and make sure that the entire deposit amount is defined as a deposit that can be used for any damage; if the pet deposit it separately listing it can be argued that the deposit money isn't interchangeable. What you can charge depends on what your local market can bear; $1000 higher deposit isn't uncommon in our area.

In my mind renters insurance comes into play if the pet injures someone, not for property damage.

Damage by tenants, children, or pets is the roll of the dice.  Try to do good screening and hope for the best.