Asked to put a price tag on their pets, most owners would call them priceless.

Courts usually don't agree because the law doesn't allow them to. In fact, a pet owner typically can't recover much more than out-of-pocket expenses when an animal is injured or killed due to someone's negligence. Current practice is to value pets at what they would cost to replace, the way insurers put a price on used cars.

In 2002, for example, a Massachusetts appeals court rejected a lawsuit in which a couple sought to recover for emotional distress and loss of companionship after a neighbor's dogs broke into their backyard and killed their seven sheep.

There was ample evidence that the "plaintiffs loved their sheep like a parent would love a child, and went so far as to throw birthday parties for them," the ruling noted, and that the defendants were to blame for letting their dogs loose. Even so, the court held that companionship claims were reserved for the loss of humans. It upheld a lower-court decision awarding the couple $1. (The couple had decided not to pursue actual damages to make a point.)

On the other hand, consider these cases:

• In 2002, an Oregon jury awarded $136,000 to a family that lost four dogs to a neighbor they alleged had poisoned them because he was fed up with their barking.

• In a civil suit that went to arbitration in Washington state in 2008, three men were ordered to pay $30,000 after killing a Chihuahua named Tia. The men had been drinking, and one was asleep in a car when Tia, barking in her backyard, apparently awakened him. He shot her dead.

• In 2007, Chicago settled with resident Calvin Hale after a police officer who ran through his property in pursuit of a suspect shot and killed his 10-year-old Akita, which Hale had raised since puppyhood. He received $27,500.

A movement to recognize the intangible value of pets is emerging across the country, one that cheers animal-rights groups but could ultimately mean higher prices for homeowners insurance, veterinary bills and even leashes and pet food.

Half would risk their lives for a pet

The idea that animals have additional, intrinsic value gained momentum nearly a decade ago after the case of a 12-year-old Shih Tzu named T-Bo. He was let out to do his business and, while in his own backyard, was fatally attacked by a larger dog roaming the neighborhood.

T-Bo's owner was Steve Cohen, then a Tennessee state senator, who discovered he could recover only "actual damages," meaning the dog's market value. Cohen's experience motivated him to push his colleagues to pass a state law that now allows up to $5,000 in "noneconomic" damages when someone's negligence leads to a pet's death, with certain exceptions, including one for veterinarians.

The nonprofit Animal Legal Defense Fund wants more states to adopt laws like Tennessee's. It also promotes the study of animal law, now part of the curriculum in nearly 100 American Bar Association-accredited law schools, an eightfold increase over the past decade.

The animal defense fund also files friend-of-the-court briefs to advance the idea that animals hold a special place in society. It cites studies showing that:

• 45% of dog owners take their dogs on vacation.

• More than half of "companion animal" owners would prefer a dog or a cat to a human if they were stranded on a deserted island.

• 50% would be "very likely" to risk their lives to save their companion animals.

Lawsuits are long shots

After the largest pet food recall in U.S. history, lawyers looked into emotional-distress damages in behalf of thousands of owners whose pets had become sick or died as a result of eating melamine-tainted food in 2007.

"We thoroughly researched the law in all 50 states and the territories, and the pet food manufacturers were very well aware that in the U.S., the vast majority of states simply did not provide for the right to collect for emotional-distress damages, except when the act by the defendant was intentional," recounted Stuart Davidson of Boca Raton, Fla., one of the plaintiffs' lead attorneys.

It's not yet clear how many people will participate in a recent $24 million class-action settlement over the melamine cases. Those who do can receive payment to replace their animals at fair market value, to recoup the costs of veterinary bills, even to get back the cost of the tainted food — but not for distress.

A lone pet owner is even more likely to find recovering emotional-distress damages an uphill battle, and the owner may have trouble finding a lawyer willing to take the case on a contingency basis.

If your pet is killed as a result of someone's negligence — run over in your driveway, perhaps, or mauled by an unleashed animal — you're more likely to find success seeking an insurance claim than suing.

Even so, the ground is shifting. Some courts now will entertain noneconomic claims in connection with an injured or slain animal, depending on the facts and applicable laws. Lawyers are seeing more claims seeking redress for emotional distress, and more plaintiffs are finding representation by attorneys. Illinois has recently passed a law allowing punitive damages to be levied in a pet's death, and more states are starting to consider legislation like Tennessee's to increase recovery beyond an animal's "replacement" or "market" value.

Is your vet a doctor or a friend?

Those shifts are among the factors behind a rise in the "nuisance" payouts insurers use to make veterinary malpractice cases go away. The animal defense fund says settlements of $3,000 to $4,000 are about 10 times the amounts of a generation ago.

Though it's unclear exactly how many malpractice cases are filed against veterinarians, there's no question that many vets have been sued. But limits on potential damages have kept the stakes low.

The American Veterinary Medical Association has a professional liability insurance trust fund to help defend against malpractice claims. The association repeatedly declined to comment.

The animal defense fund sees a touch of hypocrisy on grounds that many vets profit by trading on the special bond between human and animal, yet the profession staunchly resists efforts to recover based on that bond.

Take Adam Karp of Bellingham, Wash. Karp has advanced "wrongful death" claims even though courts have rejected the term in behalf of animals.

"Truly, I do believe it is wrongful death," Karp insisted. "It's not just semantics. I wouldn't say 'wrongful death' (regarding) my toaster because it was never alive, and my animal was."

John Schedler, a Seattle lawyer who has squared off against Karp in malpractice cases, acknowledged that vets pay only a "modest" yearly premium. But he also contended they "don't make all that much money."

His point: Allowing animal owners to recover what he describes as "mawkishly excessive amounts" through loss-of-companionship claims would jack up premiums, resulting in higher pet care fees to consumers.

Unleashing the lawyers could get expensive

Upping the ante over an injured or killed animal could end up costing consumers in other ways.

Dave Golden, the director of commercial lines of insurance with the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, an industry trade group, contends the "effort under way to transform the legal status of animals as essentially equivalent to humans" could put pressure on lots of products and services: the manufacturers of items such as leashes and toys; the groomers who shampoo, clean and clip nails; and kennels and breeders.

Each could face greater risks if animals are counted as more than property, Golden asserted. He noted that some animal-law attorneys and activists now refer to pet owners as "animal guardians" as part of what he alleges is a strategy to raise the stakes. If that happens, Golden forecasts "pretty severe" financial consequences.

"How do you put a dollar value on an emotional attachment? You can't," Golden said. He added that "litigation has to be paid for by someone" and predicted that allowing emotional damages would come back to bite consumers.

If you're unlucky enough to be at fault in an animal's death, you're probably covered, at least for now. State Farm spokesman Dick Luedke said your auto policy will cover you if you're at fault in an incident like hitting a horse trailer on an interstate highway, for example. Similarly, your homeowners insurance would kick in if your dog ripped into a neighbor's pet, and the carrier would defend you against a claim seeking emotional distress.

If State Farm started to pay for such damages, it would need to raise premiums by some sum to reflect its increased risk, Luedke says. Interestingly, he also observed: "Just because we don't cover for noneconomic damages doesn't mean that we don't believe that those damages exist."

Animal-law activists counter that it's unfair and premature to presume such additional costs, and that much would depend on how reforms are crafted.

A to-do list, just in case

There are different ways of recovering money if your animal has been killed or injured, depending on the circumstances. It could be through a criminal case if a prosecutor charges animal cruelty; a civil lawsuit, usually with the help of an attorney; or in a small-claims court, which are less formal but have damage caps.

Regardless of the option, the animal defense fund notes that the burden is always on the plaintiff. The more proof of damages you have, the more you are likely to recover.

And the more organized you are, the better your chances that the case will be seen to have merit. To that end, the animal defense fund recommends keeping a file to document:

• Veterinary bills and records (past and present, including routine checkups and vaccinations).

• Proof or examples of your pet's unique or special qualities, including training certificates, purchase receipts, pedigree papers and photographs of the animal (before and after).

• Your relationship with and attachment to the animal, with photographs of time spent with your animal companion and names and addresses of witnesses who can testify about his/her importance to you and your family.

• How much it would cost you to replace him/her and any evidence that is helpful in establishing that value.

Related Links:

What your pet really costs you

Why you can't afford a dog

Should you buy pet insurance?