Dog Bite Demand Letter - Indiana

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF INDIANA

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

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 sustained in a dog-bite incident on [Date of Attack] in [County] County, Indiana. This letter presents the facts and legal theory supported by the presently available evidence and makes a settlement demand. Delete every allegation, injury, and damage category that the record does not support.

I. INDIANA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Indiana Code § 34-11-2-4(a) ordinarily requires an action for injury to a person to be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues. Do not calculate the filing deadline from this template. Counsel must determine accrual, tolling, the identity of each defendant, any governmental-party notice requirement, and any other claim-specific deadline.

B. Limited Statutory Liability - Ind. Code § 15-20-1-3

Indiana Code § 15-20-1-3 creates liability for a defined situation: an unprovoked bite of a person who was acting peaceably at a location where that person may be required to be to discharge a duty imposed by Indiana law, federal law, or federal postal regulations. The statute removes any need to show prior vicious behavior or the owner's knowledge of it when those elements are met. It does not create an across-the-board liability rule for every dog-related injury.

"Sec. 3. (a) If a dog, without provocation, bites a person:
(1) who is acting peaceably; and
(2) who is in a location where the person may be required to be in order to discharge a duty imposed upon the person by:
(A) the laws of Indiana;
(B) the laws of the United States; or
(C) the postal regulations of the United States;
the owner of the dog is liable for all damages suffered by the person bitten.
(b) The owner of a dog described in subsection (a) is liable for damages even if: (1) the dog has not previously behaved in a vicious manner; or (2) the owner has no knowledge of prior vicious behavior by the dog."

C. Common-Law Negligence Liability Outside the Statute

When § 15-20-1-3 does not apply, a claimant must evaluate fact-specific negligence theories. The current official Indiana Court of Appeals opinion in McElhany v. Jordan, No. 24A-CT-2250, ¶¶ 12-17 (Ind. Ct. App. May 7, 2025), explains that dogs are presumed harmless, but specific acts may show a dangerous propensity and create a factual issue about what an owner knew or should have known. The opinion also treated negligent exposure of a dog to the public as a fact-dependent question on the evidence before it. A first bite or breed label alone should not be presented as automatic proof of liability.

D. Key Elements Under Indiana Law

For Statutory Liability (Ind. Code § 15-20-1-3):

1. The dog bit the person;
2. Without provocation;
3. The person was acting peaceably; AND
4. The person was in a location where the person may be required to be to discharge a duty imposed by Indiana law, federal law, or federal postal regulations.

For Common-Law Negligence:

1. Identify the conduct creating the claimed duty and standard of care;
2. Identify specific facts bearing on dangerous propensity, foreseeability, and the defendant's actual or constructive knowledge;
3. Identify the act or omission alleged to be a breach; and
4. Connect that breach to the supported injuries and damages.

E. Indiana Comparative Fault

For an action governed by Indiana's Comparative Fault Act, §§ 34-51-2-5 to -6 proportionately reduce compensatory damages for claimant fault and bar recovery only if claimant fault is greater than 50% of total fault. The Act contains applicability rules and exceptions, so counsel must confirm that it governs each pleaded theory. Provocation is separately an express element of the § 15-20-1-3 statutory route.

Based on [identify testimony, video, records, or other evidence], Claimant contends that [he/she/they] did not provoke the dog and was not otherwise at fault.

F. Current Official Opinion Anchor

• McElhany v. Jordan, No. 24A-CT-2250, ¶¶ 12-17 (Ind. Ct. App. May 7, 2025) - presumption that dogs are harmless; specific-acts inquiry into dangerous propensity and owner knowledge; fact-specific negligent-public-exposure analysis.

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE NOTICE

Please take reasonable steps to preserve relevant materials within your possession, custody, or control, including:

• ☐ All veterinary records for the animal
• ☐ Vaccination records, including rabies vaccination
• ☐ Animal licensing and registration documents
• ☐ [County] County Animal Control records
• ☐ All photographs or videos of the animal
• ☐ Prior bite reports or complaints regarding this animal
• ☐ Prior aggressive incidents involving this animal
• ☐ Any "dangerous animal" designations
• ☐ Communications with animal control or authorities
• ☐ Homeowner's or renter's insurance policies
• ☐ Any known liability exclusions or animal-related endorsements
• ☐ Lease agreements (if renting) and any pet policies
• ☐ Training records for the animal
• ☐ Proof of confinement measures (fencing, leash, muzzle)

This request is not intended to interfere with veterinary care, public-health directives, animal-control orders, or any legal duty. Please notify counsel promptly if responsive material is at risk of routine destruction or loss.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Attack

On [Date of Attack], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe the activity and legal basis for presence, if relevant] in [City], [County] County, Indiana.

At that time, [Dog Owner Name]'s [Breed] dog [describe how attack occurred - e.g., "escaped from the owner's property through an unsecured gate," "was off-leash in violation of the [City/County] leash ordinance," "broke free from its leash when the owner lost control," "attacked without warning or provocation," etc.].

The available evidence shows [describe whether and how the dog bit or otherwise injured Claimant, and the evidence concerning provocation]:

[Example: "The dog lunged at our client, knocked [him/her] to the ground, and bit [him/her] repeatedly on the [body parts affected]. Our client attempted to protect [himself/herself] but was unable to fend off the animal. The attack lasted approximately [duration] before [describe how attack ended]."]

B. Basis for Liability

[SELECT THE APPLICABLE BASIS:]

Option A - Statutory Liability (Use only if every statutory fact is supported):

Our client was required to be at the location to discharge [identify the specific duty] imposed by [identify Indiana law, federal law, or federal postal regulation]. Claimant was acting peaceably, and the dog bit Claimant without provocation. Under Indiana Code § 15-20-1-3, the owner is liable for damages proved to have resulted from the bite even if the dog had not previously behaved viciously and the owner lacked knowledge of prior vicious behavior.

Option B - Common-Law Negligence (Use only if supported by specific evidence):

The dog owner knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of this dog's dangerous propensity prior to the attack, as evidenced by:

• [Prior bite incidents]
• [Prior aggressive behavior]
• [Complaints to owner or animal control]
• [Warning signs posted]
• [Owner statements acknowledging danger]

These specific facts support an inference that the owner knew or should have known of the propensity and failed to take reasonable precautions. See McElhany v. Jordan, No. 24A-CT-2250, ¶¶ 12-17 (Ind. Ct. App. May 7, 2025).

C. Evidence of Scienter (Prior Knowledge of Dangerous Propensities)

The dog owner knew or should have known of the animal's dangerous propensities. Evidence of such knowledge includes:

• ☐ Prior Bite Incidents: This dog has bitten [number] other people on [prior dates]. [Provide details.]
• ☐ Prior Aggressive Behavior: This dog has displayed aggressive behavior including [describe: lunging, growling, snapping, chasing, attacking other animals, etc.].
• ☐ Complaints to Animal Control: [Number] complaints have been filed with [City/County] Animal Control regarding this dog.
• ☐ Warning Signs: The owner posted "Beware of Dog" signs on the property.
• ☐ Owner Admissions: The owner has admitted [describe admissions].
• ☐ Witness Statements: Neighbors and others can attest to prior incidents.

D. No Provocation

Based on [identify evidence], Claimant contends there was no provocation. At the time of the incident, Claimant was:

• ☐ Peacefully and lawfully present at the location
• ☐ Not interacting with or approaching the dog
• ☐ Not engaging in any behavior that could be construed as threatening
• ☐ Not teasing, tormenting, or abusing the animal
• ☐ [Performing required duties / An invited guest / On public property]

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Statutory Liability Under Ind. Code § 15-20-1-3

[If applicable - claimant was at the location to discharge a duty imposed by one of the sources listed in the statute:]

Claimant contends the supported facts satisfy each statutory element:

1. Dog Bite: The dog owned by [Dog Owner Name] bit our client.
2. No Provocation: Our client did nothing to provoke the attack.
3. Peaceable Conduct: Our client was acting peaceably while [performing duties].
4. Required Presence: Our client was required to be at the location to [deliver mail / read meter / perform inspection / etc.].

B. Common-Law Negligence Based on a Known Dangerous Propensity

[If applicable - owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensity:]

Outside the statute, liability depends on the supported negligence theory and evidence. Indiana presumes dogs harmless, but specific acts can create a factual issue about a dangerous propensity, owner knowledge, and the reasonableness of exposing the dog to others. McElhany v. Jordan, No. 24A-CT-2250, ¶¶ 12-17 (Ind. Ct. App. May 7, 2025).

Here, [Dog Owner Name] knew or should have known that this dog was dangerous because:

• [List specific evidence of knowledge — prior bites, aggression, complaints, warnings]

and [Dog Owner Name] failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the attack.

C. Negligence Theory

Claimant contends the evidence supports negligence as follows:

Duty and standard of care: [State the fact-specific duty and supporting authority selected by Indiana counsel.]

Breach: The owner breached this duty by:

• ☐ Failing to properly restrain the dog
• ☐ Failing to properly confine the dog to the property
• ☐ Failing to maintain secure fencing
• ☐ Failing to warn of the dog's dangerous propensities
• ☐ Violating the [City/County] leash ordinance
• ☐ [Other breaches]

Causation: The breach directly caused our client's injuries.

Damages: Our client suffered substantial damages as detailed below.

D. Local Ordinance, If Applicable

[Identify the exact ordinance, effective date, prohibited conduct, and evidence of violation.] Counsel must verify whether current Indiana law treats the particular ordinance as creating a duty, evidence of breach, a presumption, or some other civil effect. Do not label the violation “negligence per se” without authority specific to the ordinance and claim.

E. Additional Defendant Analysis (If Applicable)

• ☐ Defendant's legal relationship to the dog: [owner / possessor / keeper / other]
• ☐ Defendant's control over the dog or relevant premises: [facts]
• ☐ Defendant's knowledge: [specific evidence]
• ☐ Separately verified legal theory and authority: [citation]

V. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

A. Description of Injuries

The records document the following injuries [delete all unsupported items]:

Bite Wounds:

• ☐ [Location] - [Description: puncture wound, laceration, avulsion, etc.]
• ☐ [Location] - [Description]
• ☐ [Location] - [Description]

Secondary Injuries:

• ☐ Soft tissue damage
• ☐ Nerve damage
• ☐ Tendon/ligament damage
• ☐ Bone fractures
• ☐ Crush injuries
• ☐ Infection risk (including rabies exposure)

Scarring and Disfigurement:

• ☐ Permanent scarring to [body parts]
• ☐ Disfigurement requiring plastic surgery
• ☐ Keloid formation

Psychological Injuries:

• ☐ Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
• ☐ Cynophobia (fear of dogs)
• ☐ Anxiety and panic attacks
• ☐ Depression
• ☐ Sleep disturbances / nightmares

B. Emergency Treatment

Immediately following the attack, our client was transported to [Hospital Name - e.g., IU Health, St. Vincent, Community Health, etc.] Emergency Department, where [he/she] received:

• ☐ Wound irrigation and debridement
• ☐ Suturing / wound closure ([number] sutures)
• ☐ Tetanus prophylaxis
• ☐ Rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) series
• ☐ Antibiotic therapy
• ☐ Pain management
• ☐ Diagnostic imaging

C. Follow-Up Treatment

[Detail all follow-up medical treatment, specialists, surgeries, physical therapy, mental health treatment, etc.]

D. Prognosis

[Describe current status, permanent conditions, future treatment needs]

VI. DAMAGES

A. Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

D. Pain and Suffering

Physical Pain:
Our client has endured excruciating pain from the initial attack, wound treatment, rabies vaccinations, surgical procedures, and ongoing recovery.

Emotional Distress:
Our client suffers from PTSD, fear of dogs, anxiety, and ongoing psychological trauma requiring professional treatment.

Permanent Disfigurement:
[If supported by medical and client records:] Claimant has permanent, visible scarring on [body parts] associated with [describe documented effects].

Loss of Enjoyment of Life:
Our client can no longer [describe activities affected by fear of dogs, physical limitations, etc.].

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based on the facts and theory described above, the documented injuries, and the supported damages, Claimant offers to resolve the claim for:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

[OR - Policy Limits Demand:]

TENDER OF FULL POLICY LIMITS OF $[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

This demand reflects the following supported items:

• Medical expenses of $[Amount]
• Lost wages of $[Amount]
• Documented scarring and psychological effects, if any
• Comparable results independently verified and analyzed by counsel, if relied on
• The strength of liability under Indiana law

VIII. INSURANCE COVERAGE

Please voluntarily provide or confirm any potentially applicable coverage information, including:

• ☐ Homeowner's insurance policy declarations page
• ☐ Renter's insurance policy (if applicable)
• ☐ Umbrella/excess liability policy
• ☐ Any exclusions or limitations for animal-related claims
• ☐ All policy limits applicable to this claim

IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• ☐ Medical records and bills from all providers
• ☐ Photographs of injuries
• ☐ Police/Animal Control incident report
• ☐ Evidence of prior incidents
• ☐ Witness statements
• ☐ Employment records and wage verification

X. CONCLUSION

Claimant contends that liability is supported by [the facts satisfying Ind. Code § 15-20-1-3 / the specific negligence facts described above]. The enclosed records support [identify injuries and damages]. This demand is based only on presently documented facts and remains subject to correction or supplementation.

If the matter is not resolved, counsel will evaluate filing in the court selected after a claim-specific jurisdiction, venue, party, and deadline review.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss settlement.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Indiana Attorney No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
File

INDIANA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• ☐ Statutory Route Is Narrow: Ind. Code § 15-20-1-3 requires an unprovoked bite, peaceable conduct, and presence at a location where the claimant may be required to discharge a duty imposed by state law, federal law, or federal postal regulations. Identify the exact duty.

• ☐ Common-Law Route Is Fact Specific: Outside the statute, identify specific acts bearing on dangerous propensity, owner knowledge, control, foreseeability, and breach. See McElhany v. Jordan, No. 24A-CT-2250, ¶¶ 12-17 (Ind. Ct. App. May 7, 2025).

• ☐ Avoid Automatic-Liability Language: A first bite, breed label, local-ordinance allegation, or disputed history does not by itself justify a categorical liability statement.

• ☐ Comparative Fault: If the Comparative Fault Act governs, §§ 34-51-2-5 to -6 reduce damages proportionately and bar recovery only when claimant fault exceeds 50%. Provocation is separately part of § 15-20-1-3.

• ☐ Other Defendants: Verify a separate theory and factual basis before asserting liability against any landlord, property manager, keeper, custodian, or non-owner.

• ☐ Deadline: § 34-11-2-4(a) ordinarily runs two years after accrual, not automatically from a date inserted by this form. Check accrual, tolling, governmental notice, and defendant-specific issues.

• ☐ Forum and Procedure: Confirm subject-matter jurisdiction, venue, local rules, and any court-specific filing requirements before suit.