Dog Bite Demand Letter - Florida

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF FLORIDA

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

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") regarding injuries alleged to have resulted from a dog-bite incident on [Date of Attack]. The dog, ownership, location, lawful-presence facts, injuries, causation, defenses, insurance, and claimed losses are described below from the presently available record. This letter is a settlement proposal, not a statutory pre-suit notice or an admission that any claim, deadline, or defense has been finally determined.

I. FLORIDA DOG-OWNER LIABILITY CONTROL

A. Florida's Strict Liability Statute

Florida Statutes § 767.04 creates an owner-liability route for a dog that bites a person in a public place or while the person is lawfully in a private place. The statute removes former viciousness and owner knowledge as elements, but it also contains a claimant-negligence reduction, a lawful-presence definition, and a premises-sign exception.

Fla. Stat. § 767.04 provides:

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

B. Statutory Application Checklist

Counsel must confirm each proposition from admissible evidence:

☐ The identified defendant owned the dog at the time of the bite
☐ The dog bit the claimant
☐ The claimant was in a public place or lawfully in the identified private place
☐ The claimed damages were caused by the bite
☐ Any claimant conduct alleged to be a proximate cause has been investigated
☐ The location and any sign evidence have been photographed and preserved

C. Statutory Defenses Under Florida Law

Section 767.04 requires separate analysis of:

☐ Comparative Negligence: Victim's negligence reduces recovery proportionally
☐ Lawful Presence: Private-property coverage depends on a statutory duty or an express or implied invitation
☐ "Bad Dog" Sign Exception: The exact premises, sign, age, readability, prominence, and owner-negligence conditions must be proved
☐ Other Claims or Defenses: Any negligence, premises, landlord, keeper, animal-control, or ordinance theory requires its own elements and authority

D. Bad Dog Sign Defense - Inapplicable Here

Fla. Stat. § 767.04 states that the owner is not liable under the sign route if the statutory conditions are met, except for a person under age six or where the damages are proximately caused by the owner's negligent act or omission. Verify:

• A sign easily readable including the words "Bad Dog" was displayed in a prominent place on the owner's premises at the time of the injury
• The victim was 6 years of age or older
• Whether the damages were proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of the owner

This defense does NOT apply because:
☐ No compliant "Bad Dog" sign was prominently displayed on the premises
☐ The attack occurred in a public place / not on the owner's premises
☐ Our client is under 6 years of age [if applicable]
☐ The owner's own negligent act or omission proximately caused the attack, defeating the sign defense

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE NOTICE

Please preserve evidence reasonably related to this incident, subject to lawful possession, control, safety, privacy, privilege, regulatory duties, and ordinary care obligations, including:

☐ The animal itself (do not destroy, euthanize, or transfer without notice)
☐ All veterinary records for the animal
☐ Vaccination records, including rabies vaccination
☐ Animal licensing and registration documents
☐ Prior bite reports or complaints
☐ Any animal-control classifications, investigations, orders, or hearing records
☐ Communications with animal control
☐ Homeowner's or renter's insurance policies
☐ Training records for the animal
☐ Photographs of the property, including any signage
☐ Proof of confinement measures

This request does not itself create a preservation duty or establish a remedy. Counsel should separately identify the governing duty, scope, control, burden, duration, and any required preservation protocol.

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 in front of [Address]," "visiting the dog owner's residence as an invited guest," etc.].

At that time, [Dog Owner Name]'s [Breed] dog [describe how attack occurred - e.g., "escaped from the owner's property," "was off-leash in violation of local ordinance," etc.].

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

B. Lawful Presence

Under Fla. Stat. § 767.04, our client was lawfully present:

☐ In a public place (public sidewalk, park, street, etc.)
☐ On owner's property as an invited guest/social guest
☐ On owner's property to perform a duty imposed by law (mail carrier, utility worker, etc.)
☐ On owner's property as a business invitee

C. No Provocation

Our client did absolutely nothing to provoke this attack:

☐ [He/She] did not touch, pet, or interact with the dog
☐ [He/She] did not make sudden movements toward the dog
☐ [He/She] did not tease, torment, or abuse the dog
☐ The attack was entirely unprovoked

IV. CLAIMANT-FAULT AND THEORY CLASSIFICATION

A. Comparative Fault Standard

For the § 767.04 owner-liability route, negligence by the person bitten that is a proximate cause of the incident reduces the owner's liability by that person's percentage contribution. The section itself does not state a greater-than-50-percent bar.

Fla. Stat. § 768.81 separately defines a “negligence action” by substance, provides proportional reduction, and bars recovery when a party is greater than 50 percent at fault in an action to which subsection (6) applies. Counsel must decide whether and how § 768.81 applies to each separately pleaded theory and the incident date; do not import its bar into the § 767.04 count without that analysis.

B. Our Client Had No Fault

[Client Name] bore absolutely no responsibility for this attack:

☐ [He/She] was lawfully present at the location
☐ [He/She] did not provoke the dog in any way
☐ [He/She] exercised all reasonable care
☐ [He/She] did not approach or interact with the dog
☐ The attack was entirely unprovoked and without warning

Claimant-fault response supported by the present record: [________________________________]

V. 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
☐ Infection risk
☐ Scarring and disfigurement

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

B. Medical Treatment

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

C. Prognosis

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

VI. DAMAGES

A. Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

D. Pain and Suffering

Document the claimed noneconomic effects without representing that every item is recoverable:

• Physical pain and suffering
• Mental anguish
• Emotional distress
• Permanent scarring and disfigurement
• Loss of enjoyment of life
• Loss of capacity for enjoyment of life

E. Damage-Law Control

Counsel must classify each defendant, cause of action, damage category, setoff, collateral-source issue, comparative-fault issue, and any applicable limitation before presenting a recoverability or cap conclusion. This packet states no categorical “no cap” rule.

F. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based on the presently documented facts, the § 767.04 analysis above, the supporting records, and the settlement risks identified by counsel, Claimant proposes resolution in the amount of:

$[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].

VIII. LIMITATIONS AND COMMENCEMENT CONTROL

Current Fla. Stat. § 95.11 lists a four-year category for an action founded on statutory liability and a two-year category for an action founded on negligence. This packet does not decide which category governs a § 767.04 count, any separate negligence count, or any other theory. Counsel must verify the cause-of-action classification, accrual, incident date, statutory version, parties, tolling, pre-suit requirements, and what constitutes timely commencement.

IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

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

X. CONCLUSION

Claimant contends that the evidence satisfies the selected § 767.04 route and supports the losses summarized above. The recipient may identify contrary evidence, insurance or ownership information, claimant-fault facts, sign evidence, lawful-presence issues, or another basis for evaluating the claim.

If the matter is not resolved, counsel will determine the proper parties, claims, forum, pleadings, jury issues, and filing date from current law and the complete record. Nothing in this demand concedes or predetermines those matters.

We urge you to resolve this matter promptly.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Florida Bar Number [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

FLORIDA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Section 767.04: Owner knowledge of former viciousness is not an element, but the statutory route still requires owner, bite, location/lawful-presence, causation, claimant-negligence, and sign-exception analysis.
• Claimant negligence: Section 767.04 supplies its own proportional reduction. Analyze § 768.81 separately for any negligence action rather than assuming its greater-than-50-percent bar automatically controls the statutory count.
• Limitations: Current § 95.11 contains different statutory-liability and negligence categories. Do not hard-code a filing date until counsel classifies every claim and verifies accrual and tolling.
• Other defendants and theories: Keeper, landlord, premises, negligence, animal-control, and ordinance theories require separate current authority and facts.
• Damages: Prove causation and each claimed loss; do not state a categorical cap or recoverability conclusion without defendant- and claim-specific research.
• Local Ordinances: Research county and municipal dangerous dog and leash law ordinances.

This template must be reviewed and customized by a Florida-licensed attorney before use.