Dog Bite Demand Letter - Montana

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF MONTANA

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

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. MONTANA DOG BITE LAW - STATUTORY STRICT LIABILITY (§ 27-1-715)

A. The Governing Statute

Contrary to a common misconception, Montana is not a pure "one-bite" state. For bites occurring within an incorporated city or town, Montana imposes statutory strict liability on the dog's owner under Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-715 ("Liability of owner of vicious dog"). The current statute provides:

(1) The owner of a dog that without provocation bites a person or service animal while the person or service animal is on or in a public place or lawfully on or in a private place located within an incorporated city or town is liable for damages that may be suffered by the person or service animal bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of the viciousness.

(2) A person or service animal is lawfully in a private place within the meaning of this section when the person or service animal is on the property in the performance of any duty imposed on the person or service animal by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States of America or when the person or service animal is on the property as an invitee or licensee of the person lawfully in possession of the property.

Under this statute the victim does not need to prove that the dog had previously bitten anyone or that the owner knew of any dangerous propensity — the "one free bite" defense is unavailable.

B. Elements of Statutory Strict Liability

To recover under Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-715, the claimant must show:

• The defendant was the owner of the dog (see Knapton v. Monk, 2015 MT 111, 347 P.3d 1257 — the statute reaches the dog's owner, not a landlord who lacks knowledge of the dog);
• The dog bit the claimant (the statute reaches bites specifically, not every injury a dog may cause);
• The bite occurred without provocation;
• The claimant was in or on a public place, or lawfully on private property (as an invitee, licensee, or person performing a legal/postal duty — including the owner's own property); and
• The bite occurred within an incorporated city or town.

Where these facts are met, liability attaches automatically and the owner's lack of knowledge is not a defense.

C. Where the Statute Does Not Reach: Common-Law Negligence and Scienter

Section 27-1-715 is limited to bites within incorporated cities or towns. For attacks in unincorporated/rural areas, or for non-bite injuries (knockdowns, scratches, being chased into traffic), the claimant relies on Montana common law, which recognizes two theories (Peterson v. Eichhorn, 2008 MT 250, 189 P.3d 615):

Theory 1 — Negligence: the owner owes a duty to exercise reasonable care in keeping a domestic animal to prevent foreseeable injury; breach of that duty (e.g., failing to restrain the dog, violating a leash ordinance) that causes injury creates liability.

Theory 2 — Scienter (abnormally dangerous domestic animal): an owner who knew or should have known that the animal had an abnormally dangerous tendency to bite or attack is strictly liable at common law for injuries caused by that propensity.

Where the facts support it, we assert all applicable theories — statutory strict liability under § 27-1-715 as the primary basis, with common-law negligence and scienter pleaded in the alternative.

D. Supporting Evidence (Statutory and Common-Law Theories)

Evidence relevant to liability and (for the common-law theories) owner knowledge includes:

☐ Location: The bite occurred within [incorporated city/town], triggering § 27-1-715 strict liability
☐ No Provocation: The dog bit without any provocation by the claimant
☐ Lawful Presence: The claimant was in a public place / lawfully on private property as an invitee or licensee
☐ Prior Bite Incidents: This dog has bitten [number] other people on [prior dates]
☐ Prior Aggressive Behavior: Documented history of lunging, growling, snapping, or chasing
☐ Complaints to Authorities: Prior complaints to Animal Control
☐ "Dangerous Dog" Designation: Official designation under local ordinance
☐ Warning Signs Posted: "Beware of Dog" signs
☐ Owner Admissions: Prior statements about dog's temperament
☐ Violation of Leash Laws / Local Ordinances
☐ Failure to Properly Restrain the Dog
☐ Negligent Supervision

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)
☐ All veterinary records for the animal
☐ Vaccination records, including rabies vaccination
☐ Animal licensing and registration documents
☐ Prior bite reports or complaints
☐ Any "dangerous dog" or "vicious dog" designations
☐ Communications with animal control
☐ Homeowner's or renter's insurance policies
☐ Training records for the animal
☐ Proof of confinement measures

Spoliation of evidence under Montana law may result in adverse inferences and sanctions.

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. Evidence of Owner's Knowledge (Scienter)

[Dog Owner Name] knew or should have known of this dog's dangerous propensities. Evidence includes:

[Detail specific evidence of prior incidents, complaints, owner knowledge, etc.]

C. Owner's Negligence

The owner breached the duty of care by:

[Detail specific acts of negligence - failure to leash, inadequate fencing, etc.]

D. No Provocation

Our client did absolutely nothing to provoke this attack. [He/She] was peacefully and lawfully present at the location.

IV. MONTANA'S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE RULE

A. Modified Comparative Negligence Standard

Montana follows modified comparative negligence under Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-702. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but the claimant is barred from recovery only if their contributory negligence is greater than the combined negligence of the persons against whom recovery is sought — i.e., at 51% or more. A claimant who is exactly 50% at fault still recovers (reduced by half). Under § 27-1-715 itself, the operative claimant-conduct limitations are that the bite must be "without provocation" and that the claimant must have been lawfully present — a provoking or trespassing claimant falls outside the statute's protection.

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 approach, touch, or interact with the dog
☐ [He/She] did not engage in any provoking behavior
☐ [He/She] exercised all reasonable care
☐ The attack was entirely unprovoked and without warning

Any assertion of comparative negligence would be baseless.

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

Montana allows recovery for:

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

E. No Compensatory Damage Cap Applies

No general compensatory-damages cap was identified for an ordinary private dog-bite claim. The noneconomic cap in Mont. Code Ann. § 25-9-411 applies only to medical-malpractice claims against health care providers and has no application here. Defendant- or claim-specific limits still require separate review. Punitive damages, if warranted under Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221, are separately capped at the lesser of $10 million or 3% of net worth under § 27-1-220(3).

F. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based upon the clear liability of the dog owner under Montana's statutory strict-liability rule (Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-715), and in the alternative under common-law negligence and scienter, the severity of injuries, and the substantial 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].

VIII. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Under Montana Code Annotated § 27-2-204, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is three (3) years from the date of injury.

Date of Attack: [Date]
Limitations Period Expires: [Date + 3 years]

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

This was a vicious, unprovoked attack by a dangerous animal whose owner knew of its propensities and/or was negligent in controlling it. Our client was an innocent victim who has suffered serious injuries.

We are prepared to try this case before a Montana jury if necessary. We urge you to resolve this matter promptly.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

MONTANA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Statutory Strict Liability (NOT one-bite): Within an incorporated city or town, Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-715 imposes strict liability for an unprovoked bite of a lawfully-present person — no proof of the owner's knowledge of viciousness is required, and the "one free bite" defense is unavailable.
• Statute Is Limited to Bites in Cities/Towns: § 27-1-715 covers bites occurring within incorporated cities/towns. For rural/unincorporated attacks or non-bite injuries, rely on common-law negligence and scienter (Peterson v. Eichhorn, 2008 MT 250, 189 P.3d 615).
• Confirm Incorporation Status: Verify the bite location is inside an incorporated municipality before leading with § 27-1-715; if outside, lead with the common-law theories.
• Plead in the Alternative: Assert statutory strict liability primarily, with negligence and scienter pleaded in the alternative where facts support.
• Modified Comparative Negligence: Under Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-702 the claimant is barred only if their fault is greater than 50% (51%+); a 50%-at-fault claimant still recovers.
• 3-Year SOL: Personal injury claims must be filed within 3 years under Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-204(1).
• Compensatory Damages: No general cap was identified for an ordinary private dog-bite claim; § 25-9-411 is medical-malpractice-only. Punitive damages are capped under § 27-1-220(3) (lesser of $10M or 3% of net worth).
• Local Ordinances: Research applicable municipal leash laws and dangerous dog ordinances (Billings, Missoula, Great Falls, etc.).
• Document Prior Incidents: Helpful for the common-law scienter theory and for aggravating damages, though not required for § 27-1-715 strict liability.

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