Niche practice: Lawyers secure wins in dog-bite cases as insurance landscape shifts

Attorneys at SkiberLaw are acquiring big wins for clients in dog-bite cases.

In two recent cases, a jury awarded a SkiberLaw client $418,000, and a judge awarded plaintiffs $770,000 and $157,000.

SkiberLaw, the law office of Michael E. Skiber, is a personal injury firm and covers an array of practice areas, but regularly handles dog bite cases.

Skiber said they represent clients in around 20 to 30 dog-bite cases a year.

Their recent victories come amid evolving insurance landscapes.

Insurance fight

However, Skiber said these types of cases do not typically get big verdicts, and the high verdicts in these two cases resulted from the severity of the injuries to the plaintiffs.

Skiber said there was also a lack of remorse from both defendants. “Although it should not be part of the ultimate decision on damages, it certainly is something that the trier of fact cannot ignore,” he said.

The plaintiff in one case said in the complaint that while walking on the sidewalk, John Heritage’s Saint Bernard-lab mix dog, Scarlett, attacked the plaintiff and gave her severe injuries.

“She thought she was going to die,” Skiber said. “She was pinned to the ground, and she was repeatedly bitten.”

In addition, the insurance company did not tender the $100,000 policy until three years into the case, Skiber said.

“At  that point, my client didn’t want it,” Skiber said. “We filed an offer of compromise at $100,000, and we told them that at this point, we thought we had no risk trying the case because we knew we’d get the $100,000 either way. Now, they’re on the hook for over $200,000 in interest on top of $318,000 over its $100,000 policy.”

The jury awarded the plaintiff $18,284.65 in economic damages and $400,000 in non-economic damages.

Skiber said his firm also intends to file a bad-faith action against the insurance company.

This issue is top-of-mind for insurers, as states like New York implement new legislation that limits insurers’ ability to deny insurance based on certain breeds.

“The statute states that no insurer shall refuse to issue or renew, cancel, or increase premium based solely upon harboring or owning any dog of a specific breed or mix of breeds,” Christine G. Barlow wrote for ALM’s Insurance Coverage Law Center. “The umbrella exclusion is for damage/injury from a breed controlled by statute because of public safety concerns, or is wild, venomous, poisonous, or has a bite history.”

Strict liability

The second case involved two victims.

Valerie Maze Keeney, new to SkiberLaw, represented the plaintiffs during the bench trial.

The complaint said the defendant, Theresa Ponger, let her pitbull outside, unsupervised and unleashed.

“This was an incident where the dogs were agreeably owned and kept by the defendant,” Keeney said. “They were unleashed and came onto the property of the plaintiff, and they gave terrible injuries to both plaintiffs. The second victim was trying to save the first victim. Under those circumstances, the first victim thought she was going to die, and nearly did.  The lack of remorse from the defendant was shocking to me.”

Skiber said they often tell the jury, “There’s no such thing as a bad dog, only bad dog owners.”

“The injuries were so overwhelming, the testimony spoke for itself, as did the visual effects that we had: photographs of the injuries, as well as medical records,” Keeney said. “The first victim testified at length about her injury and about the event, as to the second victim, the mother of the victim testified because the victim is deceased.”

According to the judge’s decision, the second victim died six months after the incident due to a heart attack.

The judge awarded the first plaintiff $70,000 in economic damages and $700,000 in non-economic damages; and $7,000 in economic damages and $150,000 in non-economic damages to the estate of the second plaintiff.

Skiber said that in dog bite cases, the defendants often “try to make an equivalency between their dogs and the victims to almost show them as people, but in Connecticut, it’s a strict-liability state.”

The only defense against a dog bite in Connecticut is if the plaintiff was teasing or tormenting the dog, or if they trespassed on the defendant’s property.

“It falls on deaf ears when dog owners try to explain why the dog bit,” Skiber said. “Shifting the blame towards the victim is never a good idea.”

Jud Reddington of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsbury, counsel for Heritage, did not respond to a request for comment. Ponger was self-represented.

Related:

Arizona, dog breeds and home insurance policies

Cost of dog bite & injury claims grew by double digits in 2022