DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF MICHIGAN

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

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] in [City/Township], [County] County, Michigan. The attack was perpetrated by a [Breed] dog owned by [Dog Owner Name]. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement pursuant to Michigan law.

I. MICHIGAN-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Michigan Strict Liability Dog Bite Statute

Michigan is a strict liability state for dog bite injuries. Mich. Comp. Laws Section 287.351 provides:

"(1) If a dog bites a person, without provocation while the person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner of the dog, the owner of the dog shall be liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness."

This statute imposes absolute liability on dog owners without requiring proof of:
- Prior viciousness or dangerous propensities
- The owner's knowledge of such propensities
- Negligence on the part of the owner

The Michigan Supreme Court has confirmed that this statute creates strict liability. Koivisto v. Davis, 277 Mich. App. 492 (2008).

B. Statute of Limitations

Under Mich. Comp. Laws Section 600.5805(10), the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including dog bite cases, is three (3) years from the date of the attack. This claim arises from an attack that occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].

C. Modified Comparative Negligence

Michigan follows a modified comparative negligence rule under Mich. Comp. Laws Section 600.2959. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but recovery is barred entirely if the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault.

However, under the strict liability dog bite statute, the only defenses are:
1. Provocation by the victim
2. Trespass (victim not lawfully on the property)

Our client was not engaged in any such conduct. The strict liability statute applies in full.

D. Dangerous Animal Act

Michigan's Dangerous Animal Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Sections 287.321-287.323, provides additional remedies when a dog has been previously declared dangerous or has caused serious injury. These provisions may provide for criminal penalties and mandatory destruction of the animal.

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:

• The animal itself (do not destroy, euthanize, or transfer without notice to our office)
• All veterinary records for the animal
• Vaccination records, including rabies vaccination
• Dog license and registration documents
• 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 under Mich. Comp. Laws Section 287.321
• Communications with animal control or authorities
• Homeowner's or renter's insurance policies
• Any liability exclusions or breed-specific riders
• Lease agreements (if renting) and any pet policies

Destruction of any evidence may constitute spoliation and will result in adverse inferences and sanctions under Michigan law. Brenner v. Kolk, 226 Mich. App. 149 (1997).

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," "lawfully on [his/her] own property," etc.] in [City/Township], [County] County, Michigan.

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 local leash law," "attacked without warning or provocation," etc.].

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

[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. Statutory Elements Satisfied

Under Mich. Comp. Laws Section 287.351, liability is established when:

1. The dog bit a person - The [Breed] dog bit our client, causing the injuries described herein.

2. Without provocation - Our client did nothing to provoke the attack:
   - Was not teasing, hitting, or antagonizing the dog
   - Was not making aggressive movements toward the dog
   - Was engaged in normal, peaceful activity
   - Had no prior interaction with the dog

3. While on public property or lawfully on private property - Our client was:
   - [On a public sidewalk/street/park]
   - [An invited guest on the property]
   - [A delivery person/postal worker with implied license]
   - [On the property of the dog owner as an invitee]

All statutory elements are satisfied. Strict liability applies.

C. No Provocation

The Michigan Court of Appeals has defined "provocation" narrowly. Under Koivisto v. Davis, 277 Mich. App. 492 (2008), provocation requires conduct that would reasonably be expected to cause the dog to bite.

Our client did not engage in any conduct that could constitute provocation:
- Did not approach or touch the dog
- Did not make threatening gestures
- Did not enter the dog's enclosure or territory
- Was simply [describe peaceful activity]

D. Post-Attack Response

Following the attack:

• Emergency medical services were summoned
• [City/Township] Animal Control was notified
• An incident report was prepared (Report No. [Number])
• The animal was quarantined for rabies observation per Michigan Department of Health regulations
• Photographs of injuries were taken
• Witness information was obtained

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Strict Liability Under Mich. Comp. Laws Section 287.351

Michigan imposes strict liability on dog owners for bite injuries. The Michigan Supreme Court in Koivisto confirmed that Section 287.351 creates a strict liability cause of action.

Elements established:

1. Defendant owns the dog - [Dog Owner Name] is the owner of the [Breed] dog.

2. The dog bit the plaintiff - The dog bit our client, causing serious injuries.

3. Without provocation - Our client did nothing to provoke the attack.

4. On public property or lawfully on private property - Our client was lawfully present at [location].

Liability is established as a matter of law. No proof of prior viciousness or negligence is required.

B. Additional Negligence Claims

While strict liability applies, the dog owner was also negligent:

1. Negligence Per Se

The dog owner violated local ordinances, establishing negligence per se:
- [City/Township] Ordinance [Number] - Leash Law
- [City/Township] Ordinance [Number] - Dog at Large
- [County] Animal Control Ordinance

2. Common Law Negligence

[Dog Owner Name] breached the duty of care by:
- Failing to properly secure the animal on the property
- Allowing the animal to roam at large
- Failing to maintain adequate fencing
- Failing to adequately supervise the animal
- [Other specific breaches]

C. Dangerous Animal Provisions (If Applicable)

[USE IF DOG HAS PRIOR DANGEROUS DESIGNATION OR PRIOR BITE HISTORY]

Under Mich. Comp. Laws Section 287.321, this dog [has been designated as a dangerous animal / has previously caused serious injury]. The owner's failure to comply with containment requirements constitutes additional evidence of negligence and may support enhanced damages.

D. Landlord Liability (If Applicable)

[USE IF ATTACK OCCURRED ON RENTAL PROPERTY]

Under Michigan law, a landlord may be liable for injuries caused by a tenant's dog if the landlord had knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities and control over the premises. Szkodzinski v. Griffin, 171 Mich. App. 711 (1988).

[Landlord Name] is liable because:
- The landlord knew of the dog's presence and dangerous propensities
- The landlord retained control over the premises
- The landlord had the authority to require removal of the animal

V. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

A. Description of Injuries

The attack caused severe and permanent injuries to our client, including:

Bite Wounds:
- [Location] - [Description: puncture wound, laceration, avulsion, etc.]
- [Location] - [Description]
- [Location] - [Description]

Secondary Injuries:
- Soft tissue damage
- Nerve damage
- Tendon/ligament damage
- 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. Emergency Treatment

Immediately following the attack, our client was transported to [Hospital Name] 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

C. Follow-Up Treatment

Wound Care:
- Provider: [Wound Care Specialist / Primary Care]
- Dates: [Treatment dates]
- Treatment: [Describe wound care protocol]

Plastic/Reconstructive Surgery:
- Surgeon: [Surgeon Name]
- Procedures: [Describe procedures]
- Dates: [Surgery dates]

Mental Health Treatment:
- Provider: [Therapist/Psychiatrist Name]
- Treatment: [PTSD treatment, therapy, medication]
- Duration: [Ongoing / Number of sessions]

D. Current Status and Prognosis

Physical Status:
- Permanent scarring on [body parts]
- Nerve damage resulting in [numbness / tingling / weakness]
- [Other permanent physical effects]

Psychological Status:
- PTSD symptoms triggered by dogs
- Ongoing anxiety and hypervigilance
- [Other psychological effects]

Future Treatment:
- Additional scar revision surgery anticipated
- Ongoing mental health treatment required

VI. DAMAGES

A. Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

D. Pain and Suffering

Physical Pain:
- Excruciating pain from the attack itself
- Pain from wound care, debridement, and suturing
- Pain from rabies vaccination series
- Ongoing pain from scarring and nerve damage

Emotional Distress:
- Terror during the attack
- PTSD symptoms disrupting daily life
- Fear of dogs limiting normal activities
- Depression related to disfigurement

Permanent Disfigurement:
- Visible, permanent scarring on [body parts]
- Impact on self-image and personal relationships

Loss of Enjoyment of Life:
- Unable to enjoy outdoor activities due to fear of dogs
- Avoidance behaviors affecting daily life

Note: Michigan does not cap non-economic damages in personal injury cases.

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based upon the strict liability of the dog owner under Mich. Comp. Laws Section 287.351, the severity and permanence of our client's injuries, and the substantial damages incurred, we hereby demand:

$[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:
- Medical specials of $[Amount]
- Lost wages of $[Amount]
- Appropriate compensation for pain, suffering, and disfigurement
- The permanent nature of the scarring and psychological trauma
- The strength of strict liability in Michigan

VIII. INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES

We demand disclosure of all applicable insurance coverage, 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

Breed-Specific Exclusions:

If any breed-specific exclusion exists, we demand complete documentation. If coverage has been denied, we will pursue the dog owner personally for the full amount of damages.

IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Medical records and bills from all providers
• Photographs of injuries (immediately after attack and during healing)
• [City/Township] Animal Control incident report
• Witness statements
• Employment records and wage verification
• Mental health treatment records
• HIPAA authorizations

X. CONCLUSION

This was a vicious, unprovoked attack by a dangerous animal. Under Michigan's strict liability dog bite statute, Mich. Comp. Laws Section 287.351, the dog owner is liable as a matter of law. There was no provocation, and our client was lawfully present at the location of the attack.

We are prepared to file suit in the [Circuit Court / District Court] for [County] County if necessary. Given Michigan's strict liability standard, we are confident in the outcome.

We urge you to resolve this matter promptly and fairly. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss settlement.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

MICHIGAN-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Strict Liability: Mich. Comp. Laws Section 287.351 creates strict liability - no need to prove prior viciousness, knowledge, or negligence.

• Limited Defenses: Only defenses are provocation and trespass. Document carefully to negate these defenses.

• Provocation Defined Narrowly: Koivisto v. Davis - provocation requires conduct reasonably expected to cause the dog to bite.

• "Lawfully on Property": Includes invitees, licensees, and those with implied permission (mail carriers, delivery persons).

• No Damage Caps: Michigan does not cap non-economic damages in personal injury cases.

• Dangerous Animal Act: Mich. Comp. Laws Sections 287.321-323 - check for prior dangerous designations.

• Comparative Negligence: While strict liability applies, comparative fault may reduce recovery if plaintiff's conduct contributed.

• Dog Owner Definition: Statute applies to "owners" - may not apply to temporary keepers without ownership interest.

• Local Ordinances: Many Michigan municipalities have additional leash laws and animal control ordinances - verify local requirements.