An Arizona appellate court affirmed a trial court ruling in favor of a homeowners insurer, finding that the “prohibited dog” exclusion in the policy's animal liability endorsement barred coverage for negligence claims against the insured.
The claims asserted that the insured's pit bull had bitten the underlying plaintiff, and that the insured had negligently failed to inform the underlying plaintiff as to whether the pit bull had timely received its rabies shots.
The Case
Emileigh Clark alleged that a tan pit bull owned by Ryan Masi severely bit her hand and that, after he was able to get his pit bull under control, she asked him several times if his dog had its shots. Clark alleged that Masi responded that he would go put his pit bull and his other dog away and then come back. Clark alleged that she tried to persuade him to stay at the scene but that he left and did not return.
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- All PropertyCasualty360.com news coverage, best practices, and in-depth analysis.
- Educational webcasts, resources from industry leaders, and informative newsletters.
- Other award-winning websites including BenefitsPRO.com and ThinkAdvisor.com.
Already have an account? Sign In
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
