DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF MINNESOTA

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

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

I. MINNESOTA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Minnesota Strict Liability Dog Bite Statute

Minnesota is a strict liability state for dog bite injuries. Minn. Stat. Section 347.22 provides:

"If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is acting peaceably in any place where the person may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained. The term 'owner' includes any person harboring or keeping a dog but the owner shall be primarily liable. The term 'dog' includes both combative and non combative breeds."

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 Minnesota Supreme Court has consistently held that this statute creates strict liability. Lewellin v. Huber, 465 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. 1991).

B. Statute of Limitations

Minnesota has one of the longest statutes of limitations for personal injury claims. Under Minn. Stat. Section 541.05, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including dog bite cases, is six (6) 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

Minnesota follows a modified comparative negligence rule under Minn. Stat. Section 604.01. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but recovery is barred entirely if the plaintiff's fault is greater than the defendant's fault (i.e., more than 50%).

However, under the strict liability dog bite statute, the primary defense is provocation. If there is no provocation, comparative fault typically does not apply. Anderson v. Anderson, 2009 WL 2876988 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).

D. "Owner" Includes Harborers and Keepers

The Minnesota statute broadly defines "owner" to include "any person harboring or keeping a dog." This expands liability beyond the legal owner to anyone who has custody or control of the dog.

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 dog" or "potentially dangerous dog" designations under Minn. Stat. Section 347.50
• 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 Minnesota law. Patton v. Newmar Corp., 538 N.W.2d 116 (Minn. 1995).

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," "in [his/her] own yard," etc.] in [City], [County] County, Minnesota.

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 Minn. Stat. Section 347.22, liability is established when:

1. The dog attacked or injured a person - The [Breed] dog attacked and injured our client, causing the damages 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 acting peaceably - Our client was engaged in peaceful activity:
   - Walking on a public sidewalk
   - Visiting as an invited guest
   - Simply existing in [his/her] own space

4. In a place where the person may lawfully be - Our client was:
   - [On a public sidewalk/street/park]
   - [An invited guest on the property]
   - [On the property of the dog owner with permission]
   - [On [his/her] own property]

All statutory elements are satisfied. Strict liability applies.

C. No Provocation

Under Minnesota law, "provocation" is narrowly construed. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that provocation requires intentional conduct designed to agitate the dog. Engquist v. Loyas, 803 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011).

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
- Was simply [describe peaceful activity]

D. Post-Attack Response

Following the attack:

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

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Strict Liability Under Minn. Stat. Section 347.22

Minnesota imposes strict liability on dog owners for attack injuries. The elements are:

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

2. The dog attacked or injured the plaintiff - The dog attacked and injured our client.

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

4. The plaintiff was acting peaceably - Our client was engaged in peaceful activity.

5. In a place where plaintiff could lawfully be - 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. Broad Scope of Minnesota Statute

Minnesota's statute is notable for its breadth:

• "Attacks or injures": Unlike some states that only cover "bites," Minnesota's statute covers any attack or injury caused by a dog, including knockdowns, scratches, and other non-bite injuries.

• "Harboring or keeping": Liability extends beyond owners to anyone harboring or keeping the dog.

• "All breeds": The statute explicitly states it applies to "both combative and non combative breeds."

C. 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] Ordinance [Number] - Leash Law
- [City] 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]

D. Dangerous Dog Provisions (If Applicable)

[USE IF DOG HAS PRIOR DANGEROUS DESIGNATION]

Under Minn. Stat. Section 347.50 et seq., this dog has been designated as a "dangerous dog" or "potentially dangerous dog." The owner's failure to comply with registration and containment requirements constitutes additional evidence of negligence and may support enhanced liability.

E. Landlord/Harborer Liability (If Applicable)

[USE IF ATTACK OCCURRED ON RENTAL PROPERTY OR DOG WAS IN CARE OF ANOTHER]

Under Minn. Stat. Section 347.22, "owner" includes any person "harboring or keeping" a dog. This extends liability to:
- Landlords who permit dangerous dogs on their property
- Dog-sitters or temporary caretakers
- Family members or roommates who keep the dog

[Additional Defendant Name] is liable because [he/she/it] was harboring or keeping the dog at the time of the attack.

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: Minnesota 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 Minn. Stat. Section 347.22, 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 Minnesota

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/County] 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 Minnesota's strict liability dog bite statute, Minn. Stat. Section 347.22, the dog owner is liable "to the full amount of the injury sustained." There was no provocation, and our client was peacefully and lawfully present at the location of the attack.

We are prepared to file suit in the District Court for [County] County if necessary. Given Minnesota's strict liability standard and the strength of the evidence, 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]
Minnesota Attorney Lic. No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

MINNESOTA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Strict Liability: Minn. Stat. Section 347.22 creates strict liability - no need to prove prior viciousness, knowledge, or negligence.

• Broad Coverage: Statute covers "attacks or injures" - not limited to bites. Includes knockdowns, scratches, etc.

• Long SOL: Minnesota has a 6-year statute of limitations for personal injury - one of the longest in the nation.

• "Harboring or Keeping": Liability extends beyond owners to anyone harboring or keeping the dog.

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

• Dangerous Dog Law: Minn. Stat. Sections 347.50-347.565 - check for prior dangerous designations.

• Provocation Defense Narrow: Provocation requires intentional conduct designed to agitate the dog.

• Municipal Liability: Cities can be liable for animal control failures under certain circumstances.

• Twin Cities Ordinances: Minneapolis and St. Paul have comprehensive dangerous dog ordinances - verify local requirements.

• Agricultural Exception: Some liability limitations may exist for farm dogs under certain circumstances.