I believe, if it's an owner occupied property, you have certain rights to deny emotiational support animals if it impedes on your health or stay.

The literature also indicates that if the ESA directly threatens the health or well being of anyone on the premises than it can be denied as well, yet I have also read that allergies are not considered a "direct threat to health"... but it doesn't mention if the allergy induces asthmatic episodes.

The Hoa won in court for the back payments, but I believe the courts denied the Hoa of getting the shares back and taking ownershipSo, I'm thinking they illegally sold me the property. 

The literature also indicates that if the ESA directly threatens the health or well being of anyone on the premises than it can be denied as well, yet I have also read that allergies are not considered a "direct threat to health"... but it doesn't mention if the allergy induces asthmatic episodes.

@Ash Gowda it’s illegal to deny it.

If you don't and the Grantor later sues to set the deed aside, it's possible the underwriter might deny liability as a matter known to the insured and not disclosed to the Company in writing prior to taking title.

In some cases you can't use an eviction as a reason to deny somebody.

@Simone Montague-Jackson agree with @Charles Carillo and @Jordan Moorhead, that they aren't what the marketing hype claims.Insurance companies are in business to make money, which requires them to have a hard stance on claims and incentivizes them to deny as many claims as possible.In our opinion and 24 years of observations, it worse with warranty insurance products!

I have called the out of state property owner which denies owning the property, and quickly hangs up the phone.

People often skip this and get denied by the bank.