Auto Accident Demand Letter - Hawaii

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT — MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION

STATE OF HAWAII

[________________________________]
Attorneys at Law
[________________________________]
[________________________________], Hawaii [____]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Facsimile: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

DATE: [__/__/____]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________], [____] [____]

RE: SETTLEMENT DEMAND — MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION
Our Client: [________________________________]
Date of Loss: [__/__/____]
Your Insured: [________________________________]
Policy Number: [________________________________]
Claim Number: [________________________________]

Dear [________________________________]:

This firm represents [________________________________] ("Claimant") in connection with the motor vehicle collision that occurred on [__/__/____] in [________________________________], Hawaii. This letter constitutes a formal demand for settlement of all claims arising from this incident.

I. HAWAII-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

HRS § 657-7 generally requires an action seeking compensation for injury to a person or property to be instituted within two (2) years after the cause of action accrued, subject to § 657-13. Determine accrual and any claim-, defendant-, or tolling-specific rule; do not automatically use the injury date.

The limitations period in this matter expires on [__/__/____].

B. Modified Comparative Negligence (Greater-Than-Aggregate Rule)

For a negligence action within HRS § 663-31, a plaintiff may recover damages only if the plaintiff's negligence is not greater than the negligence of the defendant or, when recovery is sought against more than one person, the aggregate negligence of those persons. Any allowed damages are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's negligence.

Our client bears no fault whatsoever for this collision.

C. No-Fault State — Tort Threshold

Hawaii is a no-fault state requiring Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage. Under HRS § 431:10C-306, tort liability for non-economic damages is abolished except in the following circumstances:

☐ Death of the person in a motor vehicle accident
☐ Significant permanent loss of use of a part or function of the body
☐ Permanent and serious disfigurement resulting in mental or emotional suffering
☐ PIP benefits incurred equal or exceed $5,000 (monetary threshold)

Our client meets the tort threshold because:

☐ PIP benefits incurred equal or exceed $5,000 — total PIP benefits incurred: $[________]
☐ Client suffered significant permanent loss of use of [________________________________]
☐ Client suffered permanent and serious disfigurement: [________________________________]
☐ Other qualifying condition: [________________________________]

[________________________________]
[Provide detailed explanation of how the threshold is satisfied, with supporting medical evidence]

D. PIP Coverage Requirements

Under HRS § 431:10C-103.5, every motor vehicle insurance policy must provide PIP benefits of at least $10,000 per person for medical expenses, funeral expenses, and rehabilitation costs arising from a motor vehicle accident. PIP also covers lost wages up to a specified percentage.

PIP benefits in this matter:

• PIP policy limit: $[________]
• PIP benefits paid to date: $[________]
• PIP benefits remaining: $[________]
• PIP exhausted: ☐ Yes ☐ No

E. No Damage Caps

Hawaii does not impose statutory caps on compensatory damages in automobile accident personal injury cases.

F. Minimum Insurance Requirements

Effective January 1, 2026 (Act 138, SLH 2024), Hawaii requires minimum liability coverage of $40,000 per person / $80,000 per accident for bodily injury and $20,000 for property damage under HRS § 431:10C-301(b), plus mandatory PIP coverage of $10,000 under HRS § 431:10C-103.5.

II. TORT THRESHOLD ANALYSIS

Detailed Threshold Satisfaction

Our client satisfies the tort threshold under HRS § 431:10C-306 as follows:

Primary Threshold Category: [________________________________]

Medical Evidence Supporting Threshold:

If relying on the $5,000 monetary threshold:
The total PIP benefits incurred by our client equal or exceed $5,000. The specific medical treatment and associated costs exceeding this threshold are detailed in the medical expenses section below. Under HRS § 431:10C-306(b)(4), this entitles our client to pursue a tort claim for all damages, including non-economic losses.

If relying on permanent loss of use or disfigurement:
[________________________________]
[Describe the permanent condition with specificity, referencing objective medical findings, physician opinions on permanency, and functional limitations]

III. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE DEMAND

☐ Complete claims file, including all adjuster notes and evaluations
☐ All photographs, videos, and surveillance footage
☐ All recorded or written statements
☐ Vehicle inspection reports, repair estimates, and salvage records
☐ Event Data Recorder (EDR) / "black box" data
☐ Cell phone records of the insured driver
☐ All insurance policy documents

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On [__/__/____], at approximately [____] [a.m./p.m.], our client was [________________________________] on [________________________________] in [________________________________], Hawaii. At that time, your insured, [________________________________], was operating a [____] [________________________________] (VIN: [________________________________]).

[________________________________]
[Describe the collision in detail]
[________________________________]

The [________________________________] [Honolulu Police Department / Maui Police / Hawaii County Police / Kauai Police] responded to the scene and prepared Report No. [________________________________].

V. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Defendant's Negligence

Your insured breached the duty of care owed to our client by:

☐ Failing to maintain a proper lookout — HRS § 291C-12
☐ Following too closely — HRS § 291C-50
☐ Failing to yield the right of way — HRS § 291C-61 et seq.
☐ Speeding or exceeding a safe speed for conditions — HRS § 291C-101
☐ Running a red light or stop sign — HRS § 291C-32
☐ Improper lane change — HRS § 291C-49
☐ Distracted driving / use of mobile electronic device — HRS § 291C-137
☐ Driving under the influence — HRS § 291E-61
☐ Other: [________________________________]

B. Comparative Fault Analysis

Under HRS § 663-31, our client bears zero percent (0%) fault for this collision.

VI. MEDICAL TREATMENT SUMMARY

A. Emergency / Immediate Treatment

B. Ongoing Treatment

C. Diagnosis Summary

☐ [________________________________]
☐ [________________________________]
☐ [________________________________]

D. Prognosis

[________________________________]

VII. ITEMIZED MEDICAL EXPENSES

Estimated Future Medical Expenses

VIII. LOST WAGES AND EARNING CAPACITY

Employer: [________________________________]
Position: [________________________________]
Rate of Pay: $[________] per [hour/week/month/year]

IX. PROPERTY DAMAGE

X. PAIN AND SUFFERING / NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES

Our client has endured significant pain and suffering, including but not limited to:

☐ Physical pain and suffering (past and ongoing)
☐ Mental anguish and emotional distress
☐ Loss of enjoyment of life
☐ Inconvenience and disruption of daily activities
☐ Scarring and/or disfigurement
☐ Fear and anxiety
☐ Sleep disruption

Non-Economic Damages Claimed: $[________]

XI. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

[If applicable:]

Claimant's spouse, [________________________________], has suffered a loss of consortium.

Loss of Consortium Claimed: $[________]

XII. TOTAL DAMAGES SUMMARY

XIII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based upon the foregoing, we hereby demand the sum of:

$[________________________________]

This demand is open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, expiring on [__/__/____].

XIV. BAD FAITH WARNING

HRS § 431:13-103 — Unfair Claims Settlement Practices

Under HRS § 431:13-103, an insurer that engages in unfair claims settlement practices is subject to regulatory action and penalties. Unfair practices include failing to acknowledge and act promptly on communications, failing to adopt reasonable standards for investigation, and not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair settlements when liability is reasonably clear.

Hawaii courts have recognized the tort of bad faith by an insurer. Best Place, Inc. v. Penn America Insurance Co., 82 Haw. 120, 920 P.2d 334 (1996).

Your company is on notice that failure to respond to this demand in good faith may result in bad faith liability and statutory penalties.

XV. ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS

☐ Medical records and bills from all treating providers
☐ PIP payment records and EOBs
☐ Police/crash report
☐ Photographs of vehicle damage and injuries
☐ Employer verification of lost wages
☐ Property damage estimates
☐ Witness statements (if available)
☐ [________________________________]

XVI. RESPONSE REQUESTED

Please confirm receipt and provide a substantive response within thirty (30) days.

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]
Attorneys for [________________________________]

By: _________________________________
[________________________________]
Hawaii Bar No. [________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________], Hawaii [____]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

HAWAII PRACTICE NOTES AND CHECKLIST

☐ No-Fault State: PIP required; must satisfy tort threshold under HRS § 431:10C-306 to pursue non-economic damages
☐ Tort Threshold Options: (1) Death; (2) significant permanent loss of use; (3) permanent serious disfigurement; (4) PIP benefits incurred ≥ $5,000
☐ Comparative-Negligence Rule: For a covered negligence action, Plaintiff is barred only if Plaintiff's negligence is greater than the negligence of the defendant or the aggregate negligence of the persons against whom recovery is sought (HRS § 663-31)
☐ No Damage Caps: Full compensation available
☐ Allocation: HRS § 663-10.9 preserves joint and several liability for economic damages in injury/death actions; motor-vehicle noneconomic damages fall within a listed exception, subject to the highway-design/maintenance rule in paragraph (4)
☐ PIP Minimum: $10,000 per person (HRS § 431:10C-103.5)
☐ Minimum Liability: $40,000/$80,000/$20,000 (HRS § 431:10C-301(b), eff. 1/1/2026 per Act 138, SLH 2024)
☐ Venue: Circuit court where cause of action arose or where defendant resides
☐ Government Claims: Verify state/county tort liability provisions

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• HRS § 657-7 (Statute of limitations)
• HRS § 663-31 (Comparative negligence)
• HRS § 431:10C-306 (No-fault tort threshold)
• HRS § 431:10C-103.5 (PIP benefits)
• HRS § 431:13-103 (Unfair claims settlement practices)
• HRS Chapter 291C (Statewide Traffic Code)
• Hawaii State Legislature: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov