Tausende XL-Bullys „drohen der Zerstörung“, da die Versicherung gekündigt wird

Some firms still offer insurance and if more stop then the government will have to do something to force them to or change the rules.

sorry Reddit it won’t lead to thousands of owners putting them down

edit, I see there are a few tears below me so let me edit in this;

It is generally 

**not legal** for a government to enforce a mandate that is objectively impossible to comply with. Such a requirement would violate fundamental legal principles regarding fairness, due process, and the purpose of law, often referred to under the doctrine of *lex non cogit ad impossibilia* (the law does not compel the impossible). 

However, the legal definition of „impossible“ is very high, and many situations that appear impossible are simply „impracticable“ (very difficult or expensive), which is not legally sufficient to overturn a mandate. 

Key Legal Principles

* **Objective vs. Subjective Impossibility:** Courts distinguish between *objective*impossibility (no one can comply) and *subjective* impossibility (the specific person cannot comply). Only the former is a strong defense against a requirement.
* **Doctrine of Impossibility/Impracticability:** If a government mandate forces a person to engage in an action that cannot be fulfilled due to unforeseeable circumstances, the mandate may be challenged or unenforceable.
* **Due Process & Fairness:** Requiring citizens to purchase a product (insurance) that the government knows or should know is unavailable in the market violates basic due process.
* **The „Impossible“ Requirement in Practice:** If insurance is mandatory, legal systems often require that the coverage be available. If an insurer refuses coverage, alternative mechanisms (such as independent brokers or state-mandated risk pools) are typically provided to make compliance possible.  The Roth Law Firm +4

Distinguishing Impossible from „Difficult“

1. **Expensive ≠ Impossible:** High cost or economic hardship is rarely accepted as a legal defense for non-compliance with a government mandate.
2. **Unavailable Insurance:** If a government requires a specific type of liability insurance that no insurer is willing to sell, the mandate itself might be deemed defective or illegal.
3. **Refusal by Insurers:** If an individual cannot obtain insurance due to their personal risk profile (high-risk driver, pre-existing condition), this is often considered *subjective* impossibility. Governments often set up „insurer of last resort“ pools to bridge this gap, as requiring insurance without providing access to it would be a violation of the spirit of the law.  Quarles +4

Legal Contexts

* **Contractual Impossibility:** If a third party (like a bank) mandates insurance and it becomes impossible to obtain, the contract itself might be voided due to frustration of purpose.
* **Government Mandates:** If a law compels a person to buy insurance or face a penalty, and the person cannot obtain that insurance, they may have a valid defense against the fine.  Quarles

*Note: The legality of such requirements is often tested through the court system, and outcomes can vary based on specific circumstances and jurisdiction.* 

* New Meaning of Defenses: Impossibility of Performance 22 Apr 2020 — That is, an alternative to force majeure clauses that excuse performance is for parties to argue impossibility of performance. Gen… The Roth Law Firm
* Impracticability, Impossibility and Frustration of Purpose (Article #10) 21 Jun 2023 — Supply Chain Survival Series: Impracticability, Impossibility and Frustration of Purpose (Article #10) * What is Commercial Imprac… Quarles
* Impossibility of performance Definition – Intro to Law and… – Fiveable 15 Aug 2025 — Definition. Impossibility of performance refers to a legal doctrine where a party is unable to fulfill their contractual obligatio… Fiveable

Show all

This could be…. interesting. 

Under the terms of the XL Bully ban, the owners have got to have third party liability insurance. 

Dogs Trust was the only insurer willing to touch them with a bargepole, and did it for the remarkably low price of £25 per household per year. The price had been the same for years and had no doubt been calculated on the risk for a good mix of breeds, not an overwhelmingly large number of banned breeds. 

Rather predictably, the cost of claims has now bankrupted the scheme. From July / when their policy runs out, unless another insurer wants to take on the financial risks, they’ll have no way to comply with the terms of the ban, other than having their dog put down. 

It’s a great shame they’ve decided to end it for all dogs and not just banned breeds. It was a useful scheme for people who found their elderly dog’s insurance premiums rose beyond what was reasonable, or were well off enough to pay vets bills directly but not the potentially limitless third party liability claim if their dog got out and caused a car crash or similar. 

Good.
Prioritising the life of dogs over humans should never have happened.

There are 55000 dogs registered with the government exemption scheme (as of 2024), and insurance is required to register.

55,000 policies is plenty for a third party to provide cover. It probably won’t cost £25 due to both overheads of a custom insurance type and due to rare but eye-wateringly expensive claims.

Bred to be aggressive and trained by awful owners to be. Mix of a violent breed and owners who care about their reputation more than safety.

i dont like these dogs and im not convinced theyre a good breed with good heads, but their owners love them absolutely and will be extremely angry and upset to have to put the dogs down. and theres always going to be another breed rise up and replace them as the „tough and expensive“ dog

why do people get these dogs? of all dogs? there are so many nicer, calmer, intelligent breeds

So the dangerous outlawed breed which I keep hearing the same “it’s not the dogs, it’s the owners” nonsense about needs special liability insurance and that very scheme now won’t cover them anymore because of claims? 🤣

Yeah, it’s the stupid dangerous inbred dogs that are prey driven and kill adults let alone children and other animals. They aren’t pets, they are inbred predators that are savage to everything they can get their jaws on. The sooner that breed is all dead and moronic “owners” are given jail time for these attacks the better!

I’m not a dog person. I prefer cats. At least they wait till you’re dead to start eating you.

Good.

I hope all the dick head owners are crying about it.

Good. People have become a bit silly about dangerous dog breeds. Tired of seeing people mauled in the streets by these things, or infants and toddlers mauled by the family “pet”.