Sample Demand Letter in Car/Truck Accident Case
Below is an example settlement demand letter we wrote in a truck accident case that we settled last year.
In some case, the demand letter is the linchpin that gets the claim resolved. In others, it is a useless appendage that sits atop a pile of medical records and bills.
Either way, you have to write the demand package like the case depends on it. Measure twice and cut once: there are a lot of mistakes you can make in putting these letters together. You are going to have a hard time backing away from any position that you take in the demand package for settlement purposes as the case progresses.
- Get an inside look the very insurance company you are facing
- How much should you ask for: get an idea of the real value of your claim
- Should you write a long, detailed demand package?
Sample Demand Letter
Mr. David Greenly
7849 Belle Point Drive
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
Re: David v. Patrick, et al.
Case No. 24-C-08-080463
You have asked for a formal demand in the David v. Patrick before trial.
As we discussed, this is a very serious injury case. Mr. David was hit by defendant’s tractor trailer on March 14, 2012. As a result of the accident he sustained permanent injuries neck and back spinal injuries. He had surgery on his back and needs to have surgery on his neck. Mr. David has been unable to work since the accident and has been declared completely disabled by his physicians and is not cleared to work. To date, Mr. David has suffered $3,836,586.26 in special damages. They are itemized as follows:
Past Medical Expenses: $ 465,459.54
Future Medical Expenses: $ 30,000.00
Past Lost Wages: $ 255,280.72
Future Loss of Earnings: $ 1,763,855.00
Future Loss of Benefits: $ 649,991.00
Pain and Suffering: $ 770,000.00
Total Special Damages: $3,896,586.26
Practice Tip: Settlement Letters
The length and detail of your settlement demand letter should be proportionate to the size of the case. This case settled for well over $1 million. A detailed letter is warranted in a case like this. If you send a similar sized letter is a small case involving injuries that resolved, you are telling the insurance adjuster in your demand that you do not know what you are doing.
As of March 12, 2012, Clarance David was employed by the federal government as a surveyor. He was a civilian, but worked for the Department of Housing and Public Works at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. He worked for this branch of the military for many years and worked his way up the ladder.
At the time of the collision he was earning $68,426 a year in salary and had a host of benefits from the federal government. No one will dispute this man is a hard worker and there is no suggestion that he had health problems at all at the time of the crash. He did have a prior L4-L5 lumbar discectomy in 1989 and had a complete recovery. He was able to return to work after his prior back surgery and required no medical care for a decade prior to his accident in 2012. There is no evidence at all of any prior problems with his neck preceding the 2012 accident.
FACTS OF THE ACCIDENT
On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle being driven by a co-worker. They were traveling northbound on Interstate 95, approaching the Harbor Tunnel in Baltimore, Maryland. At the same time, Defendant Pakacki was operating a tractor-trailer northbound on Interstate 95, directly behind the vehicle in which Plaintiff was a passenger. The tractor-trailer crashed into the back of the vehicle occupied by the Plaintiff and forced that vehicle into a vehicle directly in front of him. Immediately after the accident, Defendant Pakacki stated a crowbar rolled underneath his brake pedal and he was unable to apply the brakes.
However, Defendant Patrick's Answers seem to indicate that he was cut off by a Phantom Vehicle going from one lane to another, which caused the accident. It is our understanding that Defendant Pakacki has not been located since his deposition and would probably not be available testify at the trial of this matter. As you know, we do not have photos of the vehicle in which our client was a passenger, but we do have pictures of the car in front of our vehicle, which are attached as Exhibit “A” to this settlement demand package. .
You have contested liability vigorously during discovery but we do not believe there is a meaningful dispute and, as we discussed, will not address the issue at length in this demand package. Frankly, we do not think you are going to contest liability at trial. In fact, we hope you do.
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
As of June 4, 2013, Plaintiff’s past medical bills were $65,459.54. He has been in active treatment since that date; however, we are not in possession of the updated medical bills for his most recent visits. See Plaintiff’s Medical Provider Index, attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” Plaintiff David underwent an IME with Dr. Serman on April 23, 2013. Dr. Shuey’s report is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”
The Defendant’s own expert states:
It is my opinion within a reasonable degree of medical probability that Mr. David sustained a traumatic nerve root impingement syndrome cervical spine injury as a result of the March 12, 2009 injury. As well, it is my opinion to a reasonable degree of medical probability that Mr. David sustained lumbar spine injury to his L4-L5 segment, causing him to have subsequent surgery to repair an L4-L5 lumbar decompression and fusion.
More importantly, your expert also opined that he believes that Mr. David would not be able to return to his former employment. Dr. Serman contends that Mr. David is a candidate for cervical spine surgery including cervical laminectomy or cervical discectomy and fusion. Dr. Serman does not challenge the fairness, reasonableness or causal relationship of any of Mr. David’s past medical treatment or medical bills. So we agree on this key issue.
Dr. Serman believes for his future cervical surgery to be $30,000. This estimate does not include any additional future medical care Mr. David would need throughout the rest of his life; however, that future amount would be secured from Plaintiff’s experts prior to trial in this case and presented to a jury. According to the life tables, Mr. David is expected to live for another 29.6 years. (See attached as Exhibit “D” to this demand correspondence.) Dr. Cammissa, Plaintiff’s treating physician, will opine that Mr. David would reasonably expect to incur additional medical expenses over the course of those 29.6 years as a result of this accident.
As a result of the severe injuries to Plaintiff David’s neck and back, he has been unable to return to work since the March 12, 2012 truck accident, and according to Dr. Cammissa he is permanently disabled as a direct result of this accident. To date, Plaintiff’s past lost wages are $255,280.72. (We have cut wages off at January 1, 2013 for the purpose of this demand letter.) Plaintiff was earning $68,426 a year at the time of the accident and has been completely disabled because of the accident for the last 194 weeks and does not expect that he is able to return to any type of gainful employment.
Providing Help to Other Lawyers Most of our personal injury cases come from referrals from other lawyers. Learn how you can still collect a fee within our ethical rules while transferring primary responsibility for your case to us.
As a direct result of this accident, Mr. David was terminated from his employment and has a future loss of earning capacity claim and a loss of benefits claim. The present day value of his loss of earning capacity is $1,763,855., which is a very conservative estimate as indicated by the expert report, attached hereto as Exhibit “E” to this settlement letter. Plaintiff’s loss of benefits are $649,998. If you have not already done so, I would really encourage you to run these numbers by an economist. We requested that our economist these estimates as conservative as possible.
As of the date of this crash, the cap on pain and suffering in Maryland was $755,000. Due to the devastating affect this accident has had on Plaintiff’s body, life and career, we believe that the pain and suffering aspect of this case warrants an evaluation that is equal to the cap both at trial and at the settlement table.
The available policy limits for this loss is $3,000,000. A portion of that policy has been paid out to other injured persons as a result of this accident. My understanding is that the policy has been depleted to $2,816,114. (See attached to this demand package as Exhibit “F” correspondence from defense counsel indicating the remaining limits available.)
Given the clear liability and undisputed permanent injuries in this case, we would recommend to our client that he less accept the balance of the available policy $2,816,114 to resolve this case out-of-court. Our demand is $2.25 million.
While we would be willing to reach an agreement on these terms, we are fully prepared for our upcoming trial. If this case does go to trial, we are obviously going to seek a recovery well in excess of the policy limits. Let me know how you would like to proceed.
Very truly yours,
Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
More Sample Demand Letters
- Car accident
- Wrongful death
- Premises liability
- Demand letter for defense counsel on the eve of trial
Related Articles and Samples
- Help me figure out the value of my case and how much I should ask for in my demand letter.
- I want to handle my own case. Am I crazy? Maybe. But if you are going to do it alone, here are some things to keep in mind.
- I'm a lawyer and I need help: guide for attorneys trying to get a claim settled out-of-court