Dog Bite Demand Letter - Arizona

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF ARIZONA

[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Arizona ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Arizona

DATE: [Date]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

[Adjuster Name / Dog Owner Name]
[Insurance Company Name / Address]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]

RE: DOG BITE CLAIM - SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Our Client: [Client Full Name]
Date of Attack: [Date of Attack]
Location of Attack: [Address where attack occurred]
Dog Owner: [Dog Owner Name]
Dog Breed/Description: [Breed, Size, Color]
Claim Number: [If assigned]
Homeowner's Policy Number: [If known]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

This firm represents [Client Name] ("Claimant") for the serious and permanent injuries sustained as a result of a vicious dog attack that occurred on [Date of Attack]. The attack was perpetrated by a [Breed] dog owned by [Dog Owner Name]. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement.

I. ARIZONA DOG BITE LAW - STRICT LIABILITY

A. Deadline Control — Complete Before Sending

Do not calculate a filing deadline from the bite date without a current case-law and accrual review. A.R.S. § 12-541(5) provides a one-year period after accrual for a liability created by statute. A.R.S. § 12-542(1) provides a two-year period after accrual for the personal-injury actions it covers. Determine which theory applies, when it accrued, and whether any tolling, disability, governmental-defendant, or other rule changes the calculation.

If a claim is against a public entity, public school, or public employee, A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) separately requires a qualifying notice of claim within 180 days after accrual and prescribes contents and recipient requirements. Confirm all public-dog and military/police-work issues under § 11-1025(D)–(F) before using this demand.

B. Arizona's Strict Liability Dog Bite Statute

ARIZONA IS A STRICT LIABILITY STATE FOR DOG BITES.

Arizona Revised Statutes Section 11-1025 provides:

"The owner of a dog that bites a person when the person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of its viciousness."

Key Elements:

1. The defendant owned the dog;
2. The dog bit the plaintiff;
3. The plaintiff was in a public place OR lawfully on private property when bitten.

Section 11-1025(A) does not require proof of former viciousness or the owner's knowledge of viciousness, but statutory applicability, lawful-presence, provocation, causation, damages, governmental-dog, and other defenses still require analysis.

C. Current-Law Verification Record

Before sending, identify and attach the current controlling Arizona decisions for the statute-of-limitations classification, lawful-presence rule, provocation standard, any common-law theory, comparative-fault interaction, landlord or nonowner liability, preservation duty, and recoverable damages. Do not rely on an uncited summary.

D. Pure Comparative Negligence

If contributory negligence or assumption of risk applies to a selected claim, A.R.S. § 12-2505 leaves the defense to the jury and reduces full damages in proportion to claimant fault that proximately caused the injury. The section provides no comparative-negligence right to a claimant who intentionally, wilfully, or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury or wrongful death. Confirm the section's interaction with each pleaded dog-bite theory.

IMPORTANT: Under A.R.S. § 11-1027, provocation is a defense to the strict-liability action — the owner must prove that a reasonable person would expect the victim's conduct or the circumstances to be likely to provoke a dog. Our client did nothing to provoke this attack. (Trespassing also defeats the statutory claim, because § 11-1025 applies only where the victim was in a public place or lawfully on private property.)

E. Constitutional Protection Against Damage Caps

Arizona Constitution article 2, § 31 generally bars state laws limiting damages for death or personal injury, but its text includes an exception for the claim of a person harmed while attempting, engaging in, or fleeing from felony conduct against a crime victim. Confirm all claim-specific constitutional, statutory, federal, immunity, and damages rules before stating that no limitation applies.

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE NOTICE

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to this attack and the subject animal, including but not limited to:

☐ Lawful access to or documentation concerning the animal, subject to public-health, veterinary, quarantine, ownership, and euthanasia requirements
☐ All veterinary records for the animal
☐ Vaccination records, including rabies vaccination
☐ Animal licensing documents, if the county has adopted licensing under A.R.S. § 11-1008
☐ Prior bite reports or complaints
☐ Any "aggressive" or "vicious" dog findings (see definitions at A.R.S. § 11-1025(G); vicious-animal proceedings under § 11-1014(H))
☐ Communications with Maricopa County/[County] Animal Care and Control
☐ Homeowner's or renter's insurance policies
☐ Training records for the animal
☐ Proof of confinement measures

This is a preservation request, not a statement that the recipient has a particular preservation duty or that a sanction will follow. Counsel must verify duty, control, proportionality, applicable procedure, and available relief before asserting a consequence.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Attack

On [Date of Attack], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe activity - e.g., "walking on the public sidewalk," "at the dog owner's residence as an invited guest," "delivering a package," etc.] in [City], [County] County, Arizona.

At that time, [Dog Owner Name]'s [Breed] dog [describe how attack occurred].

The dog attacked our client viciously and without provocation. [Describe the attack in detail].

B. Location at Time of Attack - Establishing Strict Liability

[SELECT APPLICABLE OPTION]

Option 1 - Public Place:
Our client was in a public place at the time of the attack, specifically [describe location — sidewalk, park, street, etc.]. If the remaining elements and statutory gates are satisfied, A.R.S. § 11-1025(A) provides the owner-liability route.

Option 2 - Lawfully on Private Property:
Our client was lawfully on private property at the time of the attack. [He/She] was [describe status — invited guest, delivery person, utility worker, mail carrier, etc.]. If the remaining elements and statutory gates are satisfied, A.R.S. § 11-1025(A) provides the owner-liability route.

C. No Provocation

Our client did absolutely nothing to provoke this attack. Under A.R.S. § 11-1027, provocation is a defense to the strict-liability action. [He/She] was:

☐ Peacefully and lawfully present at the location
☐ Not interacting with or approaching the dog
☐ Not engaging in any threatening or provoking behavior
☐ Not tormenting, teasing, or abusing the dog

The dog's attack was entirely unprovoked and without justification.

D. Post-Attack Response

Following the attack:

☐ Emergency medical services were summoned
☐ [City] Police Department was notified
☐ [County] Animal Care and Control was contacted
☐ An incident report was prepared (Report No. [Number])
☐ The biting incident was immediately reported to the county enforcement agent under A.R.S. § 11-1014(E)
☐ The animal's vaccination status and the applicable § 11-1014 quarantine route were documented
☐ Photographs of injuries were taken
☐ Witness information was obtained

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Strict Liability Under A.R.S. Section 11-1025

Claimant contends that A.R.S. § 11-1025(A) applies because:

1. Ownership: [Dog Owner Name] owned the dog that attacked our client.
2. Bite: The dog bit our client, causing serious injuries.
3. Location: Our client was [in a public place / lawfully on private property] when the attack occurred.

Section 11-1025(A) states that former viciousness and the owner's knowledge of viciousness are not elements of this statutory route.

Before sending, counsel must confirm ownership, bite, lawful presence, provocation, causation, damages, the military/police-work provisions in § 11-1025(D)–(F), and every other claim or defense raised by the facts.

B. Provocation Defense Does Not Apply

Under A.R.S. § 11-1027, provocation is a defense to the statutory strict-liability claim, judged by whether a reasonable person would expect the victim's conduct or the circumstances to be likely to provoke a dog. The defense does not apply here because our client:

• Did not tease, torment, or abuse the dog
• Did not strike or threaten the dog
• Did not engage in any conduct that would naturally provoke a dog to bite
• Was simply [describe innocent activity]

C. Additional Theories (Alternative/Supplemental)

Do not add negligence, negligence-per-se, landlord, keeper, statutory-owner, punitive-damages, or ordinance theories until current controlling authority is cited and the required facts are established. Potential facts to investigate include:
☐ Failing to properly secure the animal
☐ Allowing the animal to roam unleashed
☐ Failing to maintain adequate fencing
☐ Failing to warn of the dog's presence

V. ARIZONA "AGGRESSIVE"/"VICIOUS" DOG PROVISIONS

A. Statutory Definitions

Arizona defines the relevant terms in A.R.S. § 11-1025(G):

• "Aggressive" — a dog that has bitten a person or domestic animal without provocation or has a known history of attacking persons or domestic animals without provocation.
• "Vicious" — a dog that has a propensity to attack, injure, or otherwise endanger human beings without provocation, or that has been found to have any of these traits after a hearing.

[CHECK IF APPLICABLE:] This dog's history of [prior incidents] shows it is aggressive and/or vicious as those terms are defined above.

B. Vicious-Animal Proceedings and Post-Bite Handling

Under A.R.S. § 11-1014(E), a person with direct knowledge of a bite must immediately report it to the county enforcement agent. Subsection (A) requires at least ten days of pound or veterinary-hospital quarantine for an unvaccinated dog or cat and permits the specified home/harbor quarantine for a properly vaccinated dog with the agent's consent and as the agent prescribes. Under subsection (H), a justice of the peace or city magistrate may order euthanasia of a vicious animal only after notice and a hearing. These public-health and animal-control provisions do not themselves establish a private negligence or punitive-damages theory.

VI. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

A. Description of Injuries

The attack caused severe injuries to our client, including:

Bite Wounds:
☐ [Location] - [Description]
☐ [Location] - [Description]

Secondary Injuries:
☐ Soft tissue damage
☐ Nerve damage
☐ Tendon/ligament damage
☐ Bone fractures
☐ Infection (including risk of rabies exposure)

Scarring and Disfigurement:
☐ Permanent scarring to [body parts]
☐ Disfigurement requiring plastic surgery

Psychological Injuries:
☐ Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
☐ Cynophobia (fear of dogs)
☐ Anxiety and panic attacks
☐ Depression

B. Medical Treatment

[Detail emergency treatment, follow-up care, surgeries, mental health treatment]

C. Prognosis

[Detail permanent conditions, ongoing treatment needs, future care requirements]

VII. DAMAGES

A. Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

D. Pain and Suffering

Document each claimed category and have counsel verify that it is recoverable under the selected cause of action:

• Physical pain and suffering
• Mental anguish and emotional distress
• Permanent scarring and disfigurement
• Loss of enjoyment of life

Constitutional gate: Article 2, § 31 generally bars state-law injury-damages limits but contains a felony-conduct exception. It does not itself prove that every listed category is recoverable or defeat every federal, immunity, causation, evidentiary, or claim-specific limitation.

E. Summary of Damages

VIII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based on the statutory claim described above, subject to every stated gate and defense, and the documented injuries and claimed damages, we hereby demand:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

B. Time for Response

This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, through and including [Expiration Date].

C. Basis for Demand

Claimant contends that the documented facts satisfy A.R.S. § 11-1025(A). The recipient should identify any disputed element, statutory exception, provocation fact, causation issue, or damages issue in its response.

IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

☐ Medical records and bills
☐ Photographs of injuries
☐ Animal Control report
☐ Police report
☐ Witness statements
☐ Employment records
☐ HIPAA authorizations

X. CONCLUSION

Claimant contends that A.R.S. § 11-1025(A) applies to [Dog Owner Name]. The statute does not require former viciousness or owner knowledge of viciousness, but the remaining elements, statutory limitations, defenses, causation, and damages remain fact- and claim-dependent.

Our client was [in a public place / lawfully on private property] when bitten and contends the bite was unprovoked. The enclosed record supports the claim and claimed damages described above.

Counsel will determine the proper claim, parties, court, venue, deadline, and pre-suit procedure from current law before filing any action.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
State Bar of Arizona No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

ARIZONA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Statutory route: A.R.S. § 11-1025(A) imposes owner liability when its bite and lawful-location requirements are met, regardless of former viciousness or owner knowledge. Review provocation under § 11-1027 and the military/police-work provisions in § 11-1025(D)–(F).
• Deadline control: Section 12-541(5) covers liability created by statute and § 12-542(1) covers listed personal-injury actions, both from accrual. Current case law must classify each theory and establish accrual, tolling, and the last safe filing date.
• Comparative-fault gate: If § 12-2505 applies to the selected claim, it supplies the claimant-fault reduction and the intentional, wilful, or wanton claimant exception.
• Constitutional gate: Arizona Constitution art. 2, § 31 generally bars state-law injury-damages limits but includes a felony-conduct exception.
• Current definitions and owner information: Section 11-1025(B) now requires the owner or responsible caretaker to provide owner contact information to the bite victim; subsection (G) defines aggressive, breed, provocation, and vicious.
• Biting-animal handling: Section 11-1014 distinguishes unvaccinated and properly vaccinated dogs, requires immediate reporting by a person with direct knowledge, and requires notice and a hearing before a judicial euthanasia order under subsection (H).
• Forum and theories: Verify the proper court, venue, parties, common-law theories, nonowner liability, preservation consequences, and damages under current controlling authority before filing or asserting them.

This template must be reviewed and customized by an Arizona-licensed attorney before use.