$90K Dog Bite Compensation

Robinson & Henry’s knowledgeable attorneys give their professional insight in “From Our Perspective,” where we take a closer look at successful outcomes achieved by our attorneys. 

In this episode, Robinson & Henry Personal Injury Partner Jon Topolewski and Senior Associate Matthew Hamblin discuss a case involving our client, who was viciously attacked by a dog. 

She not only faced painful injuries and mounting hospital bills but also the discouraging reality that another law firm had dropped her case. That’s when Robinson & Henry’s Personal Injury team stepped in and secured a $90,000 settlement in less than five months.

Past results afford no guarantee of future results; each matter is different and must be judged on its own merits. Facts are those of an actual Robinson & Henry personal injury case. 

Our client had been walking her dog near her rental home, a rural property where the landlord kept several Australian shepherds. One of the dogs, with a known history of aggression, broke free and attacked her.

The client suffered severe injuries, including deep lacerations and multiple contusions along her right leg. It was a brutal attack that left her with significant medical expenses.

Initially, the woman hired another attorney to pursue her claim. But that attorney dropped the case after the landlord’s insurance company denied coverage for the incident, leaving her without legal representation or compensation. That’s when the woman contacted Robinson & Henry.

The denial could have been the end of her case. Instead, Topolewski and Hamblin viewed the case differently. They saw a path forward.

Rather than treating the insurance company’s denial as the end of the road, our attorneys looked for another strategy to secure coverage.

They filed a lawsuit against the landlord, which forced the landlord’s insurance company back into the picture.

Once the landlord received the lawsuit and turned it over to her insurer, the insurance company reversed course and agreed to provide coverage.

Topolewski and Hamblin leveraged their knowledge of how insurance policies operate to formulate a winning strategy. Insurance policies typically include two obligations: a duty to defend and a duty to indemnify. The duty to defend requires insurers to cover legal defense costs when a policyholder is sued, even if the coverage is disputed.

By filing the lawsuit against the landlord, our attorneys triggered this duty. That move created financial pressure on the insurance company, which now faced the costs of defending the claim regardless of its denial. 

By creating financial pressure on the insurer, our team compelled the company to consider a settlement rather than incurring ongoing legal fees. 

Topolewski and Hamblin also lead Robinson & Henry’s Insurance Claim Denials practice area. They credit their experience with both sides of insurance disputes as a key advantage in this case.

The team has represented injured clients pursuing coverage as well as policyholders fighting their own insurers for defense. That dual perspective allowed them to anticipate the insurer’s position and craft a strategy that pushed the company toward resolution.

This approach transformed what appeared to be a dead-end case into a successful recovery. In less than five months, the client went from a zero-dollar offer and no coverage to receiving a $90,000 settlement.

For injury victims who feel their cases have stalled or been rejected, this case is a reminder not to give up too soon.

Our attorneys emphasize the importance of persistence and working with lawyers who understand the complexities of insurance. 

A dog bite case involves proving liability and damages, but it also requires deep knowledge of how insurance coverage applies. That combination made the difference in this case.

Robinson & Henry takes pride in representing clients whom others might turn away. This outcome is an example of how a creative legal strategy can provide hope when other attorneys give up. Instead of closing the case, the attorneys pursued every available path until the client received the compensation she needed.

For the client, the settlement meant relief from financial stress and recognition of the pain she endured. This case demonstrates that Robinson & Henry’s willingness to challenge an insurance company can have a profound impact. It shows the importance of challenging insurers when they attempt to deny coverage.

In the end, our client, who once faced mounting medical bills and no path forward, received a meaningful settlement that allowed her to move on with her life. 

Read this video’s full transcript:

Question:  Jon and Matt, thank you so much for joining me. Tell me more about what happened to our client and how serious were her injuries?

Matt: Our client, she was walking her dog, near her rental property. It was a pretty rural area on a farm where the landlord had kept a lot of Australian shepherds. One of those Australian shepherds who had a pretty checkered past with attacking its owner and attacking other people, whereas let loose by that owner and ran up to our client and attacked her and her dog, causing very severe injuries along her right leg.

Question: Before coming to you, the client had been with another attorney. What had happened with that case? 

Jon: When the client came to us, she had actually hired another attorney to help her with her injury case. And that attorney had told her that, unfortunately, the insurance company for her landlord had denied coverage for what had occurred.

The reasoning didn't seem to be something that we felt that they could stand on. However, this other attorney saw this roadblock and said, okay, I don't think I can take this any further. 

I think really at Robinson & Henry, we try to look at these problems not through a formulaic sense, maybe, as some firms do. But looking at is there another way, is there another path to be able to help our clients? 

After talking with her, reviewing the letter that her attorney had received from the insurance company, I felt that there was a way that we could trigger that insurance company's coverage, and get her the compensation for these really grisly, pretty horrible injuries.

Question: You decided to step in when other law firms wouldn’t. What was your approach in challenging the insurance company? 

Matt: When an insurance carrier denies your claim, on this case, it was the insurance company for the responsible party. Claiming that there was no coverage. The next step was to file suit against the responsible party, which we did. After she gave the complaint that we filed against her to her insurance carrier, they decided to jump in and issue coverage.

Jon: That was sort of part of our strategy as well. You know, most insurance policies, like a homeowner's policy that this person has they provide you with two coverages, a duty to defend and a duty to indemnify. 

The duty to defend is just that. If you are sued because of an allegation that you did something wrong, your insurance company has to pay for your defense.

The duty to indemnify says that if you are sued because an allegation you did something wrong leads to damages that you owe, they'll pay for those damages. 

That was a big part of our strategy, was putting the insurance company in that difficult position of weighing costs of defending that they're going to have to do with trying to get it to a resolution.

Question: You also lead our insurance claim denial practice area. How does your experience of working with insurance companies, how did that help in this case? 

Jon: I mean, I think it was significant. I think our experience in handling these cases and we've handled these types of cases not only in this situation for the injured party against the insurer, but we've handled situations where the insured has come to us and said, hey, I've been sued.

My insurance company is denying coverage. They're not defending me. They're not indemnified me. I think they should. And we've stepped in and helped get that person coverage and benefits for those situations. 

So sort of knowing both sides of how this works, I think allowed us to formulate a strategy for this person that got them to the end point where they needed to go. Turning a zero dollar offer, good luck, into a substantial recovery that compensated her for the injuries she had.

Question: Ultimately, what was the outcome of this case? And really, what did it mean to the client as well? 

Matt: Well, she was able to get a settlement of $90,000. So she had gone from zero offer, no coverage to $90,000. She was extremely happy with the result.

Jon: And in a little less than five months. From the date that I picked up the phone or picked up the phone after she called and talked to her to the date that we were giving her a check was about five months now. 

Question: What advice would you give to someone who has an injury claim and they may be losing hope?

Jon: Don't, you know, talk to an attorney who has experience. If it's an insurance related issue, whether it's somebody else's insurance or your insurance, talk to somebody who knows insurance, because understanding a dog bite case would just which this is at its core is important. And I think helped us get to the point of convincing the insurance company to pay.

But understanding how insurance works helped us go from an attorney who says, there's nothing I can do here, who might know dog bite claims to an attorney who knows both. We can turn a zero into a $90,000 offer. 

Matt: Yeah. I think our unique perspective in that regard helped us bring this home to our client.