*  Please note there are a couple of clarifications that Mr. O'Hara would like to make in the story contained above:

The Kentucky Supreme Court ruling that is mentioned in the article is not for this specific case.  The subject case is Benningfield v. Zimeister.  However, the Fuller case was held in abeyance until the Benningfield case was decided.  A ruling in the Fuller case is expected shortly that will probably align with this Benningfield case ruling.

Andrew was 7 years old when he was attacked, but Jo-Jo the boxer was an adult dog, approximately 2-3 years old.


 

What Michael says:

Andrew was hospitalized for 3 days, which is a scary experience for a seven-year old. He got a little bit of an infection, had a whole lot of stitches, and can't get back the piece of his left ear he lost to the dog, who was not a puppy.  

Who gets paid?  The property insurer, who collected premiums, but failed to pay when there was a loss. They have the best of both worlds.  Other than that, Andrew's family must pay back almost $20,000 in medical bills before Andrew would receive any compensation for pain or suffering.

Because the dog owner bought a new truck around the same time we were awarded the judgment against her, she pays about $500 per month for the truck.  But she only pays about one-third of that, $160 a month, to satisfy this judgement.  That $160 a month goes into an account to repay the health insurer.  Neither Andrew nor his family are allowed to have any money before they repay the health insurer.

Without the landlord's insurer bearing responsibility for this, it may never be made right for Andrew.  What do you think about that now? It's not that simple.

Michael A. O'Hara