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
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:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 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.
