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, a civil action at law generally must be filed within three (3) years from accrual, unless another Code provision supplies a different period. Confirm the claim-specific accrual rule, special periods, and tolling before calculating a deadline.

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

B. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE — CRITICAL WARNING

Evaluate the claimant's conduct, causation, and any asserted contributory-negligence defense under current controlling authority. A percentage shorthand does not resolve the defense or its exceptions for this claim.

Evidence bearing on claimant conduct and causation: [IDENTIFY RECORDS AND EXPLAIN THEIR EFFECT].

C. Last Clear Chance Doctrine

Maryland's last clear chance doctrine may permit recovery despite contributory negligence only if the defendant had a fresh opportunity to avert the injury after the plaintiff's negligence was put in motion. The parties' negligent acts must be sequential, not concurrent. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Anderson, No. 2055, Sept. Term 2003 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004).

Our client asserts no contributory negligence. Raise this doctrine only if the evidence supports its distinct, sequential acts and the defendant's fresh opportunity to avoid the harm.

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
• October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027: $980,000

Use the cap for the period in which the cause of action arose: [ACCRUAL DATE]. Confirm the applicable amount before sending this demand.

In a personal-injury action, the cap applies to each direct victim and all persons claiming through that victim, not per defendant. In a wrongful-death action with two or more claimants or beneficiaries, the aggregate noneconomic ceiling is 150% of the applicable base regardless of their number; with one claimant, the base applies. CJP § 11-108 does not include economic or punitive damages in its noneconomic limit, but other limits may apply.

F. PIP Coverage

Md. Code, Ins. § 19-505 generally requires the insurer to provide Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits unless coverage was waived under § 19-506 or rejected under § 19-506.1. Section 19-505 provides benefits up to at least $2,500 for covered medical expenses and income loss without regard to fault. Confirm the policy, any waiver or rejection, and the claimant's eligibility before listing PIP benefits.

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, Transp. § 17-103 (uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage must mirror those limits under Md. Code, Ins. § 19-509).

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:

The evidence identified above does not support a contributory negligence defense. Please identify any contrary facts on which you rely. Claim handling should be assessed under the particular conduct listed in Md. Code, Ins. § 27-303; asserting a disputed defense alone does not establish a statutory violation.

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. Statute or Ordinance Rule

A qualifying violation of a Maryland traffic statute constitutes evidence of negligence, not negligence per se; the violation must proximately cause the claimed injury. Walton v. Premier Soccer Club, Inc., No. 11, Sept. Term 2024 (Md. Apr. 24, 2025); 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 and spouse, [________________________________], seek compensation for injury to their marital relationship, if supported by the evidence. A consortium claim must be filed jointly by the couple and tried with the injured spouse's claim. Oaks v. Connors, No. 113, Sept. Term 1994 (Md. 1995) (discussing Deems v. Western Maryland Ry. Co.).

The consortium component shares a single noneconomic damages cap with the injured spouse's claim under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108. Include it within the capped noneconomic amount below; do not add it again to the total.

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 through [__/__/____] at [Time] [Time Zone], unless extended or withdrawn in writing. This is a claimant-selected settlement period.

XIV. CLAIM-HANDLING NOTICE

Md. Code, Ins. §§ 27-303, 27-304 — Unfair Claim Settlement Practices

Under Md. Code, Ins. § 27-303 (and, where committed with the frequency to indicate a general business practice, § 27-304), the insurer's actual claim handling must be evaluated against the applicable statutory categories. Section 27-1001 supplies an administrative process for actions under Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1701; it does not turn this third-party settlement demand into a first-party civil claim.

Separate Claim-Handling Analysis

Do not treat rejection of this demand, assertion of a disputed defense, or expiration of the claimant-selected response period as automatically creating common-law bad-faith or excess liability. Any such theory requires the correct insured/claimant posture, parties, policy, elements, proof, causation, notice, and procedural prerequisites. The administrative and first-party statutes above do not by themselves convert every third-party settlement dispute into a direct civil action.

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 Attorney Number (AIS): [________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________], 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: Requires a fresh, sequential opportunity for the defendant to avert the harm after the plaintiff's negligence
☐ Gross Negligence Exception: Contributory negligence not a defense to gross negligence
☐ Non-Economic Cap: $980,000 for a cause arising October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027; increases $15,000 each October 1 (§ 11-108)
☐ PIP: Check for a written waiver or rejection, coverage, and claimant eligibility; § 19-505 otherwise sets benefits up to at least $2,500
☐ 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: Identify whether the defendant is the State or a local government; the Maryland Tort Claims Act and Local Government Tort Claims Act have different notice rules
☐ Local-Government Notice: CJP § 5-304 generally requires written notice within one year after injury for an unliquidated-damages claim against a local government or employee, subject to statutory exceptions; check recipient and method
☐ Minimum Insurance: $30,000/$60,000/$15,000 (Md. Code, Transp. § 17-103; UM/UIM mirrors under Md. Code, Ins. § 19-509)

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 (Statute of limitations): https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/laws/StatuteText?article=gcj&section=5-101
• Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108 (Non-economic damage cap): https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/laws/StatuteText?article=gcj&section=11-108
• Md. Code, Transp. § 17-103 (Required security / minimum liability limits)
• Md. Code, Ins. § 19-505 (PIP — $2,500 minimum): https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/laws/StatuteText?article=gin&section=19-505
• Md. Code, Ins. § 27-303 / § 27-304 (Unfair claim settlement practices): https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/laws/StatuteText?article=gin&section=27-303
• Md. Code, Ins. § 27-1001 (procedure for Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1701 actions): https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gin&section=27-1001&enactments=false
• Md. Code, Transp. Title 21 (Rules of the road)
• Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-304 (local-government notice): https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcj&section=5-304&enactments=false
• Oaks v. Connors (consortium and noneconomic cap): https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/1995/113a94.pdf
• Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Anderson (last clear chance): https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2004/2055s03.pdf
• Maryland General Assembly: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov