Finally, the appellate court held that the doctrine of concurrent causation did not apply because Masi's alleged negligence in failing to inform Clark of his dog's medical condition necessarily was “tied to the dog bite.”

The case is American Strategic Ins. Corp. v. Clark, No. 1 CA–CV 12–0881 (Ariz.Ct.App. Dec. 19, 2013). Attorneys involved include: Koeller Nebeker Carlson & Haluck LLP by William A. Nebeker, Zahnie L. Soe Myint, John H. Cline, Phoenix, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee ASI; Jardine Baker Hickman & Houston by Michael Warzynski, Phoenix, Counsel for Defendants/Appellants Clark.

Originally published on FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center. FC&S Legal is the industry's ONLY single-source, comprehensive portal developed specifically for insurance coverage law professionals. To find out more, visit www.fcandslegal.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

This article is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional service. If legal advice is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.

Special Reports /

'Prohibited Dog' Exclusion Bars Coverage in Arizona for Negligence Claim

Related Stories

Recommended For You