Dog Bite Demand Letter - Tennessee

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF TENNESSEE

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

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104(a)(1) generally gives an injury-to-the-person action one (1) year after accrual, subject to statutory and claim-specific rules. This demand does not toll or determine the filing deadline.

I. TENNESSEE-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations - CRITICAL

Under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-3-104(a)(1), a listed injury-to-the-person action generally must be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of action accrued. The attack occurred on [DATE]; counsel's supported accrual date is [DATE], and the current working deadline is [DATE].

We will not hesitate to file suit prior to the expiration of the limitations period if this matter is not resolved.

B. Tennessee Dog Bite Statute - Tenn. Code Ann. Section 44-8-413

Tennessee has enacted a specific dog bite statute that creates owner liability under certain circumstances:

Tenn. Code Ann. Section 44-8-413 (the "Dianna Acklen Act of 2007," as amended 2016) provides in relevant part:

"(a)(1) The owner of a dog has a duty to keep that dog under reasonable control at all times, and to keep that dog from running at large. A person who breaches that duty is subject to civil liability for any damages suffered by a person who is injured by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in or on the private property of another.
(2) The owner may be held liable regardless of whether the dog has shown any dangerous propensities or whether the dog's owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities. . . .
(c)(1) If a dog causes damage to a person while the person is on residential, farm or other noncommercial property, and the dog's owner is the owner of the property, or is on the property by permission of the owner or as a lawful tenant or lessee, in any civil action based upon such damages brought against the owner of the dog, the claimant shall be required to establish that the dog's owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities."

When subsection (a)'s owner, duty, breach, injury, and location conditions are met, prior dangerous propensity or owner knowledge is not required. Subsection (b) sets out exceptions (police/military dogs, trespassers on the owner's nonresidential property, the dog protecting its owner or another innocent party from attack, a dog securely confined in a kennel/crate/enclosure, and provocation). Subsection (c)(1) is a different route for specified residential, farm, or other noncommercial property: the claimant must prove the owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities in addition to any other required element.

C. Residential, Farm, or Other Noncommercial Property Gate

Subsection 44-8-413(c)(1) changes the proof when the injury occurs on residential, farm, or other noncommercial property and the dog's owner owns that property or is there with permission or as a lawful tenant or lessee. The claimant must then establish that the owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities, in addition to any other elements required by prevailing premises-liability or comparative-fault law.

D. Owner and Running-at-Large Definitions

Section 44-8-413(e)(1), as amended by official Public Chapter 662 (2016), defines an owner as a person who regularly harbors, keeps, or exercises control over the dog at the time of the damage; temporary keeping does not qualify, and land ownership alone is insufficient. Subsection (e)(2) defines running at large as the dog going uncontrolled on another's premises without consent or going uncontrolled on a highway, public road, street, or other place generally open to the public.

E. Modified Comparative Negligence

Tennessee follows modified comparative fault with a 49% bar, adopted judicially in McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992) (Tennessee's comparative-fault rule is common law, not codified). A plaintiff may recover damages only so long as the plaintiff's fault is less than the defendant's fault; if the plaintiff is 50% or more at fault, recovery is completely barred.

Our client bears no responsibility for this attack.

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
• ☐ Animal licensing 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 animal-control classification, order, or prior designation
• ☐ 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
• ☐ Training records for the animal
• ☐ Proof of confinement measures (fencing, leash, muzzle)

This is a preservation request, not a statement that a particular sanction follows automatically. Counsel should determine the recipient's present preservation duty and any available remedy under the governing forum law and facts.

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," "jogging in [Park Name]," etc.] in [City], [County] County, Tennessee.

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 running at large as defined by Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413(e)(2)," "broke free from its leash when the owner lost control," "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. Dog Running at Large

At the time of the attack, the dog was "running at large" as defined under Tennessee law:

• ☐ The dog was not on the owner's property
• ☐ The dog was not under the owner's immediate control
• ☐ The dog was not restrained by leash or other means
• ☐ The dog fit the running-at-large definition in Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413(e)(2)

When § 44-8-413(a)'s owner, breach, location, and exception gates are satisfied, liability does not require proof of prior dangerous propensity or owner knowledge; subsection (c) supplies the separate specified-property rule.

C. Owner's Knowledge of Dangerous Propensities

In addition to "running at large" liability, the owner had actual and/or constructive knowledge of this dog's dangerous propensities:

• ☐ Prior Bite Incidents: This dog has bitten [number] other people on [prior dates]

• ☐ Prior Aggressive Behavior: This dog has displayed aggressive behavior including [describe]

• ☐ Complaints to Animal Control: [Number] complaints have been filed with [County] Animal Control

• ☐ Prior Official Classification or Order: [Identify the issuing authority, date, findings, and current status]

• ☐ Warning Signs: The owner posted "Beware of Dog" signs, demonstrating awareness of danger

• ☐ Owner Admissions: The owner has admitted [describe admissions]

• ☐ Witness Statements: Neighbors and others can attest to prior incidents

D. No Provocation

Our client did absolutely nothing to provoke this attack. At the time of the incident, our client 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
• ☐ Engaged in normal, everyday activities

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Statutory Liability — Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413

The current evidence supports the statutory route because:

1. [Dog Owner Name] was an "owner" under subsection (e)(1): [facts]
2. The owner breached the duty to keep the dog under reasonable control and from running at large: [facts]
3. The dog injured Claimant in a public place or while Claimant was lawfully on another's private property: [facts]
4. No subsection (b) exception applies: [facts addressing police/military use, trespass, protection from attack, secure confinement, and provocation]
5. ☐ Subsection (c) does not apply ☐ Subsection (c) applies, and owner knowledge plus every other required element is supported by: [facts]

B. Additional Theory Gate

Do not add a common-law, premises-liability, landlord, ordinance, or negligence-per-se count without current controlling authority and facts for its defendant, duty, breach, causation, defenses, and remedy. Potential facts for counsel's analysis include:

• ☐ Failing to keep the dog under reasonable control as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413(a)
• ☐ Allowing the dog to run at large as defined by Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413(e)(2)
• ☐ Failing to properly secure or restrain the animal
• ☐ Failing to maintain fencing
• ☐ Failing to warn of known dangerous propensities

C. Landowner or Landlord Screen

Land ownership alone does not make a person an "owner" under § 44-8-413(e)(1). Identify any separate theory only after verifying the person's actual harboring, keeping, control, knowledge, authority, conduct, and claim-specific law: [________________________________].

D. Section 44-8-413(b) Exceptions and Comparative Fault

Provocation: Our client did nothing to provoke this attack.

Trespass: Our client was lawfully present at the location of the attack.

Comparative Fault: Our client bears no responsibility for this attack.

Assumption of Risk: Our client had no knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities.

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
• ☐ Bone fractures
• ☐ Infection
• ☐ Risk of 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] in [City], Tennessee, 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 treatment]

D. Current Status and Prognosis

[Describe current condition and future treatment needs]

VI. DAMAGES

A. Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

D. Pain and Suffering

[Describe physical pain, emotional distress, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life]

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based on the supported § 44-8-413 route, the documented injuries, and the enclosed evidence, 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].

Given Tennessee's one-year statute of limitations, we will file suit if this matter is not resolved prior to the expiration of the limitations period.

C. Basis for Demand

This demand reflects:

• Medical specials of $[Amount]
• Lost wages of $[Amount]
• The permanent nature of the scarring and psychological trauma
• Any comparator materials actually supplied and analyzed by counsel
• The specific statutory route and supporting facts stated above

VIII. INSURANCE COVERAGE

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

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
• ☐ Mental health treatment records
• ☐ HIPAA authorizations

X. CONCLUSION

This was a serious, unprovoked attack. The evidence described above supports the selected statutory route, including the owner, location, breach, exception, and any subsection (c) knowledge findings.

Given the working limitations date, we request a prompt response. Counsel will select the proper forum and file before the supported deadline if the matter cannot be resolved.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss settlement.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

TENNESSEE-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• ☐ LIMITATIONS: Applied Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104(a) to the supported accrual and any qualifying criminal-prosecution facts; calendared the working deadline.

• ☐ Statutory Route: Applied § 44-8-413's owner, control/running-at-large, location, exception, and any subsection (c) knowledge gates to the evidence.

• ☐ Running at Large: Applied the definition in § 44-8-413(e)(2); did not treat a separate criminal provision or local ordinance as automatic civil liability.

• ☐ Modified Comparative Fault (49% Bar): McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992) (common-law rule) - Recovery barred if plaintiff 50% or more at fault.

• ☐ Prior Official Record: Obtained and evaluated any animal-control classification, order, report, or prior-incident record without treating it as an automatic civil element.

• ☐ Local Ordinance Gate: Identified the exact municipality, current ordinance text, effective date, covered conduct, civil relevance, and facts before relying on an ordinance.

• ☐ Additional Remedies and Procedure: Added no interest, punitive-damages, venue, preservation-sanction, or insurance-disclosure conclusion without separately verified current authority and facts.

Sources and References

• Official Public Chapter 276 (2007) — enacted § 44-8-413
• Official Public Chapter 662 (2016) — amended the owner definition
• Official Public Chapter 226 (2023) — amended § 44-8-408 and preserved § 44-8-413 remedies
• Official Public Chapter 388 (2015) — restated § 28-3-104(a)
• Current 2025 Tennessee Code § 44-8-413 mirror text
• Current 2025 Tennessee Code § 28-3-104 mirror text
• Licensed CourtListener reproduction — McIntyre v. Balentine