Settlement Demand Letter | Demand Before Trial Begins
Below is an example settlement demand letter in a brain injury case. This is a demand to the defense lawyer in litigation. We also have several examples of settlement demand letters that we use pre-suit which are different animals.
This case actually did not settle but we got a verdict in excess of the insureds policy limits.
- Get more sample demand letters in different tort cases
- 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?
January 4, 2018
Mr. Michael Jonas
6301 Ivy Lane
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
Re: Fujioka v. Wesley, et al.
Case No. 24-C-12-060403
I am making a settlement demand of the $500,000.00. This settlement demand also includes the following conditions:
- That the $500,000.00 liability policy limits are paid within two weeks;
- That Brethren waive subrogation against your client;
- That the case proceeds forward on the issue of damages only. In other words, Defendant Chao and Defendant Brethren both admit that the sole and proximate cause of the collision was due to the negligence of Defendant Chao and that Mr. Metcalf was not contributorily negligent and did not assume the risk of his injuries.
If these conditions are met, your client will escape all personal exposure from any jury verdict in excess of the $500,000.00 liability policy. My client will also sign a full and final release as to any possible additional excess exposure above the one million dollars in total insurance coverage. This will result in a trial against Brethren only on the issue of damages.
When considering tendering your policy limits, do you really believe that a Prince George’s County jury will disregard the testimony of the Director of the Brain Injury Clinic from the number one Psychiatric Department in the Country who receives grants from the government to conduct research regarding patients who sustain a mild traumatic brain injuries as it relates to long-term problems? The defendants’ expert Dr. Buchholz, cannot hold a candle to Dr. Radison or Dr. Hillendale in the care and treatment of patients with TBIs, not to mention that he earns approximately one million dollars a year testifying for defense attorneys. I realize I'm not telling you anything here you do not already know.
Since you represent Ms. Chao and not GEICO in this matter, I would assume that you would strongly recommend and encourage GEICO to accept our demand and because you have a fiduciary duty to Ms. Chao, it is clearly in your client’s best interests to recommend to GEICO that they tender the full liability limits. To do anything less in light of the severity of Mr. Metcalf’s claims for extensive injuries, medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages which are likely to exceed the one million dollars in total insurance available, will surely expose GEICO to a bad faith action which we will aggressively pursue.
Please be advised that in the event that GEICO waits until the “eleventh hour” to tender its policy limits, we will immediately file an Ex Parte motion to postpone the trial to allow Brethren to comply with Insurance Article, Section 19-511.
Prince George’s County judges are very familiar with the tactic employed by other liability insurance carriers that wait until the last possible minute to tender their liability limits in order to avoid the application of §19-511. When this has occurred in the past, we have always obtained a postponement of the trial date to ensure that our client receives the amount of the liability policy (whether paid by the liability carrier or the uninsured carrier).
Additionally, any collusion on the part of the insurance carriers by entering into a clandestine “understanding” that the underinsured carrier will not subrogate against the tortfeasor will, in my opinion, be seen as a wrongful attempt to avoid the application of §19-511. This conduct will subject both carriers to an unfair settlement practice action/bad faith action. The underinsured carrier has an affirmative duty to act with honesty and integrity regarding the insured’s claim. Entering into a clandestine agreement with the liability carrier to avoid paying out the liability policy limits is not an act of honesty and integrity. Brethren is no virgin to first-party bad faith actions.
Enclosed please find my entry of appearance. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Ronald V. Miller, Jr.