Auto Accident Demand Letter - Maryland

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT — MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION

STATE OF MARYLAND

[________________________________]
Attorneys at Law
[________________________________]
[________________________________], Maryland [____]
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 [________________________________] County, Maryland. This letter constitutes a formal demand for settlement of all claims arising from this incident.

I. MARYLAND-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101, the general statute of limitations for civil actions is three (3) years from the date of the injury.

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

B. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE — CRITICAL WARNING

MARYLAND IS ONE OF ONLY FOUR STATES (PLUS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) THAT FOLLOWS PURE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

Under this doctrine, a plaintiff who is even 1% at fault is completely barred from any recovery. Harrison v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 295 Md. 442, 456 A.2d 894 (1983).

THIS IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN EVERY MARYLAND AUTO ACCIDENT CLAIM.

Our client bears ABSOLUTELY NO FAULT for this collision. The evidence conclusively establishes that your insured was solely and exclusively responsible. Any assertion of contributory negligence is completely without factual basis. The police report, witness statements, physical evidence, and all other evidence in our possession unequivocally establish that our client was exercising all due care.

C. Last Clear Chance Doctrine

Maryland recognizes the last clear chance doctrine, which permits recovery even if the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, provided the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the injury and failed to exercise reasonable care to do so. Wooldridge v. Price, 184 Md. 346, 41 A.2d 96 (1945).

While this doctrine is not needed in our client's case (our client was not negligent), it is noted as an additional basis for recovery should the carrier raise a frivolous contributory negligence defense.

D. Assumption of Risk

Maryland recognizes assumption of risk as a separate defense from contributory negligence. It does not apply in this case as our client did not voluntarily assume any known risk.

E. Non-Economic Damage Cap

Maryland imposes a cap on non-economic damages under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108. The cap increases by $15,000 on October 1 of each year:

• October 1, 2024 through September 30, 2025: $950,000
• October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2026: $965,000
• [Verify current cap based on date of injury / expected trial date]

The cap applies per plaintiff (not per defendant). In wrongful death cases, the cap is multiplied by the number of claimants. The cap applies only to non-economic damages; economic and punitive damages are not capped.

F. PIP Coverage

Maryland requires Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage under Md. Code, Ins. § 19-505. PIP provides minimum benefits of $2,500 per person for medical expenses and lost wages, regardless of fault. Higher limits are available.

G. Minimum Insurance Requirements

Maryland requires minimum liability coverage of $30,000 per person / $60,000 per accident for bodily injury and $15,000 for property damage under Md. Code, Ins. § 27-303 and Md. Code, Transp. § 17-103.

II. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ANALYSIS — ZERO FAULT

Our client was exercising all reasonable care at the time of the collision:

☐ Operating at or below the posted speed limit
☐ Maintaining a proper lookout in all directions
☐ Obeying all traffic signals, signs, and pavement markings
☐ Maintaining proper lane position
☐ Following at a safe distance
☐ Wearing a seat belt
☐ Not distracted, impaired, or fatigued in any way
☐ Operating a properly maintained and equipped vehicle
☐ Exercising all other due care consistent with conditions

Supporting Evidence of Zero Contributory Negligence:

There is absolutely no evidence supporting a contributory negligence defense. Raising this defense without a good-faith factual basis constitutes an unfair claims practice.

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 [________________________________] County, Maryland. At that time, your insured, [________________________________], was operating a [____] [________________________________] (VIN: [________________________________]).

[________________________________]
[Describe the collision in detail — EMPHASIZE FACTS SHOWING ZERO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE BY CLIENT AND SOLE FAULT OF INSURED]
[________________________________]

The [________________________________] [Maryland State Police / County Police / Municipal Police] responded to the scene and prepared Crash Report No. [________________________________]. The report [________________________________] [describe findings, citations, fault — emphasize if report assigns sole fault to insured].

V. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Defendant's Negligence

Your insured breached the duty of care by:

☐ Failing to maintain a proper lookout — Md. Code, Transp. § 21-104
☐ Following too closely — Md. Code, Transp. § 21-310
☐ Failing to yield the right of way — Md. Code, Transp. § 21-401 et seq.
☐ Speeding or exceeding safe speed — Md. Code, Transp. § 21-801.1
☐ Running a red light or stop sign — Md. Code, Transp. § 21-202
☐ Improper lane change — Md. Code, Transp. § 21-309
☐ Distracted driving / texting — Md. Code, Transp. § 21-1124.2
☐ Driving under the influence — Md. Code, Transp. § 21-902
☐ Other: [________________________________]

B. Negligence Per Se

Violation of a Maryland traffic statute constitutes evidence of negligence. Brooks v. Lewin Realty III, Inc., 378 Md. 70, 835 A.2d 616 (2003).

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

☐ 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
☐ Physical impairment

Non-Economic Damage Cap: $[________] (based on Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108; verify applicable cap year)

Non-Economic Damages Claimed: $[________]

XI. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

[If applicable:]

Claimant's spouse, [________________________________], has suffered a loss of consortium. Loss of consortium is a recognized cause of action in Maryland. Deems v. Western Maryland Ry. Co., 247 Md. 95, 231 A.2d 514 (1967).

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

Md. Code, Ins. § 27-1001 et seq. — Unfair Claims Settlement Practices

Under Md. Code, Ins. § 27-1001, an insurer that engages in unfair claims settlement practices is subject to regulatory penalties. Unfair practices include failing to promptly investigate claims, misrepresenting policy provisions, and not attempting good-faith settlements when liability is reasonably clear.

Common-Law Bad Faith

Maryland courts recognize that an insurer has a duty to act in good faith when settling claims. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 334 Md. 381, 639 A.2d 652 (1994). An insurer that fails to settle within policy limits when it could and should have may be liable for the full judgment, including amounts in excess of policy limits.

Asserting contributory negligence without a factual basis as a strategy to reduce claim value constitutes an unfair claims settlement practice.

Your company is on notice that failure to respond in good faith may result in bad faith liability and excess exposure.

XV. ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS

☐ Medical records and bills from all treating providers
☐ PIP payment records
☐ 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: _________________________________
[________________________________]
Maryland Bar No. [________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________], Maryland [____]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

MARYLAND PRACTICE NOTES AND CHECKLIST

☐ CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: Maryland is one of only 4 states (plus DC) with this harsh rule — plaintiff completely barred if any fault
☐ Last Clear Chance: May overcome contributory negligence in some cases
☐ Gross Negligence Exception: Contributory negligence not a defense to gross negligence
☐ Non-Economic Cap: Increases $15,000 annually on October 1 (~$950,000-$965,000 range for 2025-2026)
☐ PIP Required: Minimum $2,500; coordinates with third-party claim (Md. Code, Ins. § 19-505)
☐ UM/UIM: Required coverage; important in Maryland due to contributory negligence
☐ Punitive Damages: No statutory cap; requires actual malice or conduct showing evil motive, intent, or fraud
☐ Government Claims: Maryland Tort Claims Act (Md. Code, State Gov't § 12-101 et seq.) — strict notice and immunity provisions
☐ Notice of Claim: If government entity involved — strict requirements
☐ Minimum Insurance: $30,000/$60,000/$15,000 (Md. Code, Ins. § 27-303)

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 (Statute of limitations)
• Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108 (Non-economic damage cap)
• Md. Code, Ins. § 27-1001 et seq. (Unfair claims practices)
• Md. Code, Ins. § 19-505 (PIP)
• Md. Code, Transp. Title 21 (Rules of the road)
• Maryland General Assembly: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov