PhoenixDog bite attorney
Phoenix dog bite attorney
Arizona holds dog owners strictly liable for bite injuries — no proof of carelessness required, no "one free bite." But the strict-liability claim carries a one-year deadline that surprises almost everyone who learns about it too late. If a dog bit you or your child in the Valley, you may have a claim, and the clock matters more here than in almost any other injury case.
THE ONE-YEAR TRAP
Two claims, two very different clocks
Arizona gives dog-bite victims a strict-liability claim that skips fault entirely — and then gives it the shortest deadline in personal injury law. Understanding which claim you're on, and which clock it runs against, is the whole game.
One year: the strict-liability claim
Arizona's dog-bite statute (A.R.S. § 11-1025) is the easier claim — no negligence to prove — but the statutory claim must generally be filed within one year of the bite. Miss it, and the simplest path to recovery is gone.
Two years: the negligence claim
A common-law negligence claim keeps Arizona's usual two-year window, but it demands proof the owner was careless — a leash left off, a gate left open, a known escape habit ignored. It's a real claim, just a harder one.
Maricopa County Superior Court
Valley dog-bite suits that don't resolve with the insurer are filed at Arizona's busiest trial court in downtown Phoenix — though most bite claims settle with a homeowner's insurance carrier long before a courtroom.
WHAT WE HANDLE
Phoenix dog bite claims, question by question
Strict liability, provocation, landlords, insurance, injured children — the questions Valley families actually ask after a bite, answered against the statutes that decide them.
Do I have to prove the dog was dangerous?
No. Under A.R.S. § 11-1025, a dog's owner is liable for bite injuries regardless of the animal's history or the owner's knowledge of it — Arizona rejected the old "one free bite" rule by statute. If the dog bit you while you were in a public place or lawfully on private property, the owner may be liable without any showing of carelessness.
That's what "strict liability" means in practice: the argument isn't about whether the owner should have known better. It's about what the bite cost you — medical care, scarring, infection risk, and the fear that follows a serious attack.
Why does everyone say I have only one year?
Because for the statutory claim, you generally do. Arizona's strict-liability dog-bite claim is subject to a one-year limitations period — half the time most injury claims get. A negligence claim survives to year two, but it requires proving the owner was careless. Waiting past year one forfeits the easier claim and leaves only the harder one.
This is the single most consequential fact on this page. People reasonably assume they have two years, like a car crash. For the claim that doesn't require proving fault, they don't — and no demand letter or insurance conversation stops that clock. Filing does.
If the bite was recent, the fix is simple: have the deadlines mapped now, while both claims are still available, rather than discovering the difference in month fourteen.
What defenses will the owner's insurer raise?
Provocation is the main one: A.R.S. § 11-1027 makes it a defense to the statutory claim if the dog was provoked, judged by whether a reasonable person would consider the conduct provocation. Where you were standing matters too — the strict-liability statute protects people in public places or lawfully on private property, so trespassing status changes the analysis.
Provocation arguments get aggressive fast, especially where the victim is a child — insurers have argued that petting, reaching, or ordinary play was provocation. What actually happened in the seconds before the bite, told by witnesses and physical evidence, is where these defenses are won or lost.
Who besides the owner might be responsible?
Usually no one — and that's worth saying plainly. Landlords generally are not liable for a tenant's dog absent special circumstances, such as actual knowledge of a dangerous animal plus control over the premises. The practical source of recovery in most bite cases is the owner's homeowner's or renter's insurance, not a search for deeper pockets.
Sometimes a person other than the legal owner was keeping or harboring the dog when it attacked, which can matter to who answers for the claim. But the honest starting point is the owner's liability coverage — identifying the policy early is often more valuable than theorizing about additional defendants.
The victim is my child — how does that change the case?
Children are the most frequent serious bite victims in the Valley, often with facial injuries and scarring that evolve as they grow. Claims belonging to a minor work differently: limitations deadlines are generally paused during childhood in many circumstances, and settlements for minors typically need court approval, so a child's claim isn't necessarily lost to time.
Generally paused is not a reason to wait. Photographs of healing wounds, witness memories, and the dog's records fade quickly — and a parent's own related claims may run on a different, shorter clock than the child's. Early documentation protects a case the law would otherwise preserve on paper only.
Scarring cases for children also involve judgment calls about timing: some resolve after revision surgery is scoped, precisely so the claim reflects the injury's real, long-term course.
Asked after Phoenix dog bites
Usually the claim is presented to their homeowner's or renter's insurance, and the insurer pays it — that's what the coverage is for. Most bite claims resolve without a lawsuit at all. If suit becomes necessary, the owner is the named defendant, but the defense and any payment still typically come from the carrier.
Legally reviewed by Catherine O’Grady, State Bar of Arizona No. 011647
Managing partner & chief compliance officer · 30+ years in practice · Reviewed August 2026 · Full bio →