Insurance Bad Faith Demand Letter - Delaware

INSURANCE BAD FAITH DEMAND LETTER

State of Delaware

Before you use this: Read the policy's suit-limitation clause and identify the claim type and denial date before calculating a filing deadline. A shorter policy period may control a covered policy claim; § 8106(b) sets a one-year floor from denial for qualifying property policies.

[LAW FIRM LETTERHEAD]

SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION — FOR RESOLUTION PURPOSES ONLY

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND VIA EMAIL TO: [________________________________]

Date: [__/__/____]

[INSURANCE COMPANY NAME]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________], [____] [________]

Attention: [________________________________], [________________________________]
Re: FORMAL BAD FAITH DEMAND — BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING — DELAWARE LAW
Insured: [________________________________]
Claimant / Plaintiff: [________________________________]
Policy Number: [________________________________]
Claim Number: [________________________________]
Date of Loss: [__/__/____]
Policy Limits: $[________________________________]
Total Demand: $[________________________________]
Response Deadline: [__/__/____] at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time

Dear [________________________________]:

I. INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF DEMAND

This firm represents [________________________________] ("our client") in connection with the above-referenced insurance claim arising under the laws of the State of Delaware. This letter constitutes a formal demand for payment of all policy benefits wrongfully withheld, and serves as notice of [________________________________]'s ("the Carrier" or "[________________________________]") bad faith conduct in handling our client's claim in violation of its obligations under the policy and Delaware law.

Delaware recognizes an insurer's duty of good faith and fair dealing as an implied term of every insurance contract. Where an insurer breaches that duty — by denying, delaying, or undervaluing a claim clearly without any reasonable justification — the insurer is exposed not only to the unpaid policy benefits but to consequential damages and, where the conduct is outrageous, to punitive damages without statutory cap. Tackett v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 653 A.2d 254 (Del. 1995); Casson v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 455 A.2d 361 (Del. Super. 1982).

This is a time-sensitive demand. The Carrier has until [__/__/____] to tender the full amount demanded of $[________________________________] and resolve all claims arising from this loss. Failure to do so will result in immediate litigation in Delaware Superior Court seeking all available remedies, including punitive damages.

II. DELAWARE BAD FAITH LAW — FULL ANALYSIS

A. The Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Delaware insurance bad faith is grounded in contract law — specifically, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that underlies all Delaware insurance contracts. There is no independent tort of bad faith insurance in Delaware. Instead, the cause of action arises as a breach of the implied contractual obligation that the insurer will handle claims honestly, fairly, and without unreasonable delay. Tackett, 653 A.2d at 263–265; Casson, 455 A.2d at 369.

This is a critical distinction for damages. Because the claim sounds in contract, Delaware courts apply contract damages principles — meaning all foreseeable consequential damages flowing from the breach are recoverable, not merely the face value of the withheld benefits.

B. Foundational Case Law

Casson v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 455 A.2d 361 (Del. Super. 1982)

Casson is the foundational Delaware decision recognizing a first-party bad faith cause of action against an insurer for wrongful denial or delay of claim benefits. The court held that where an insurer fails to process or pay a first-party claim in good faith, it breaches the implied covenant underlying the policy. Casson established that the bad faith cause of action sounds in contract — not tort — and that the insured need not prove malice to establish the claim.

Tackett v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., 653 A.2d 254 (Del. 1995)

The Delaware Supreme Court in Tackett confirmed and refined the Casson standard. Key holdings:

1. Standard: Bad faith is actionable where the insurer's denial or delay is "clearly without any reasonable justification." Negligence, inadvertence, or mere errors in judgment are insufficient.
2. Breach of Contract: The bad faith action sounds in contract arising from the implied covenant. Tackett does not establish an automatic emotional-distress remedy or a physical-symptoms test for that remedy.
3. Punitive Damages: Even though bad faith sounds in contract, punitive damages are available if the insurer's breach is "particularly egregious" — specifically, where the conduct is "outrageous" due to "evil motive" or "reckless indifference to the rights of others." Tackett, 653 A.2d at 265.
4. No Statutory Cap on Punitives: Delaware imposes no statutory cap on punitive damages in insurance bad faith cases; the measure is governed by Delaware common law. See Tackett, 653 A.2d at 265.

Dunlap v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 878 A.2d 434 (Del. 2005)

Dunlap expanded the scope of the implied covenant beyond the mere timely processing and payment of claims. The Delaware Supreme Court held that the implied covenant may be breached where an insurer deprives the insured of the benefit of a third-party recovery without justification — even absent a failure to pay the insured directly. Dunlap confirms that Delaware courts interpret the implied covenant broadly to protect the reasonable expectations of the insured.

Connelly v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 135 A.3d 1271 (Del. 2016)

Connelly addressed the statute of limitations for third-party bad faith failure-to-settle claims. The Delaware Supreme Court held that the three-year limitations period for such claims does not begin to run until the excess judgment against the policyholder becomes final and non-appealable. Connelly, 135 A.3d at 1278. This ensures that the insured's entire bad faith exposure crystallizes at one measurable point.

Rowlands v. PHICO Insurance Co. (Del. Super. 2000)

Established that third parties lack standing to bring a first-party bad faith claim against an insurer without an assignment of rights from the insured. Standing requires privity or an assignment.

C. Summary of Delaware Bad Faith Legal Standards

D. Delaware Unfair Claims Practices — 18 Del. C. § 2304(16)

While 18 Del. C. § 2304(16) does not confer a private right of action on policyholders, it lists prohibited claim-handling practices when performed often enough to indicate a general business practice. The facts supporting any regulatory allegation must be identified separately from the implied-covenant claim. The Delaware Insurance Commissioner enforces § 2304 through cease-and-desist orders, fines, and license revocation. See 18 Del. C. § 2306.

Section 2304(16) lists these practices, subject to its general-business-practice threshold:

☐ Acknowledge and act reasonably promptly on claim communications
☐ Adopt and implement reasonable standards for prompt claim investigation
☐ Affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time after proof-of-loss statements are completed
☐ Attempt a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement when liability is reasonably clear
☐ Refrain from requiring duplicative preliminary and formal submissions

E. Delaware Consumer Fraud Act — 6 Del. C. § 2513 (Supplemental Remedy)

Section 2513(b)(3) excludes matters subject to the jurisdiction of Delaware's Insurance Commissioner from the Consumer Fraud Act's unlawful-practice section, subject to its stated energy-facility exception. Section 2513(c) defines when conduct is "in connection with" a merchandise transaction; it does not grant treble damages. Do not assert a DCFA remedy for this insurance claim without separately established authority showing that the particular matter falls outside the statutory exclusion.

III. POLICY INFORMATION AND COVERAGE

A. Policy Details

B. Coverage Analysis

The policy provides coverage for [________________________________]. The loss clearly falls within the policy's insuring agreement under Delaware's interpretive principles — ambiguities in insurance contracts are construed in favor of coverage.

The Carrier has [acknowledged coverage by / not disputed that the loss is a covered peril under] the policy. Having accepted (or having no valid basis to deny) coverage, the Carrier is obligated under Delaware law to:

1. Conduct a thorough, fair, and objective investigation
2. Evaluate the claim in good faith without seeking pretextual reasons to deny
3. Promptly pay all amounts owed under the policy once liability is reasonably clear
4. Communicate honestly and transparently with the insured regarding the status of the claim
5. Avoid unreasonable delays caused by internal administrative failures or profit-driven claims management
6. Refrain from compelling the insured to institute litigation through lowball offers or unjustified denials

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND CLAIM HISTORY

A. The Underlying Loss

On [__/__/____], [________________________________].

[FULL NARRATIVE OF UNDERLYING LOSS — include date, circumstances, injuries or property damage, immediate aftermath, any witnesses or official reports, medical treatment if personal injury]

B. The Carrier's Obligations as They Arose

Following the loss, the Carrier owed our client the following specific obligations under the policy and Delaware law, with the following applicable deadlines:

C. Chronological Timeline of Bad Faith Conduct

V. SPECIFIC BAD FAITH CONDUCT

The following specific conduct by the Carrier constitutes a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Delaware law, as the Carrier's actions are clearly without any reasonable justification under Tackett, 653 A.2d at 265:

A. Unreasonable Delay in Claim Handling

The Carrier has unreasonably delayed the investigation, evaluation, and payment of this claim in violation of its obligations under Delaware law and the policy:

• Delay 1: [DESCRIBE — include specific dates, communications, and the Carrier's explanation (or absence thereof)]
• Delay 2: [DESCRIBE — include timeline details and impact on client]
• Delay 3: [DESCRIBE]

Total delay as of this letter: [____] days / [____] months since the date of loss with no adequate explanation.

B. Inadequate and Biased Investigation

The Carrier failed to conduct the thorough, fair, and objective investigation required under Delaware law:

• [INVESTIGATION FAILURE 1: e.g., Carrier retained a vendor with a documented history of claim underpayment; independent investigation was not conducted]
• [INVESTIGATION FAILURE 2: e.g., Carrier's adjuster failed to conduct a full site inspection; relied solely on photographs submitted by repair shop]
• [INVESTIGATION FAILURE 3: e.g., Carrier disregarded treating physician's opinions in favor of file-review physician who never examined the claimant]

The Carrier's investigation was designed to find reasons to deny or reduce the claim rather than to objectively evaluate it. This is precisely the type of conduct that Delaware bad faith law prohibits.

C. Unreasonable and Inadequate Settlement Offers

The Carrier's settlement posture has been grossly inadequate relative to the documented value of this claim:

The Carrier offered $[________________________________]. The supporting record [IDENTIFY RECORD AND EXPLAIN WHY THE OFFER LACKS A REASONABLE BASIS]. We contend this conduct breached the implied covenant. Section 2304(16)(f) is a regulatory provision that requires the stated conduct to occur with enough frequency to indicate a general business practice; this letter does not assert that a single disputed claim proves that predicate.

D. Misrepresentation of Policy Provisions and Coverage

The Carrier has made the following misrepresentations of fact or policy provisions to our client:

• [MISREPRESENTATION 1: e.g., "Carrier erroneously told our client that the policy required arbitration before suit when no such provision exists"]
• [MISREPRESENTATION 2: e.g., "Carrier cited a policy exclusion inapplicable to the covered loss"]
• [MISREPRESENTATION 3: e.g., "Carrier misrepresented applicable depreciation schedules to reduce the ACV payment"]

Document any alleged misrepresentations separately. Section 2513(b)(3)'s insurance-jurisdiction exclusion must be resolved before asserting a Consumer Fraud Act claim; § 2513 does not grant treble damages.

E. Failure to Communicate and Bad Faith Reserve Practices

• Communication failures: [DESCRIBE — unreturned calls, lapses in correspondence, failure to identify adjuster, failure to explain delay]
• Reserve manipulation: ☐ Upon information and belief, the Carrier set reserves well below the reasonable value of this claim in order to minimize internal loss ratios, not because the claim lacked merit.
• Supervisory failure: [DESCRIBE — supervisors approved inadequate offers or unreasonable denials without independent review]

F. Pattern of Conduct (If Applicable)

☐ The Carrier's conduct in this case is not isolated. The Carrier has a documented pattern of [describe — using cite to regulatory actions, news reports, or prior litigation] that demonstrates a systemic approach to claim undervaluation and delay. This pattern supports a punitive damages claim under Tackett.

VI. STATUTORY VIOLATIONS — 18 Del. C. § 2304(16)

The following conduct may support a regulatory allegation under 18 Del. C. § 2304(16) if a general business practice is established. Select only supported items and identify the evidence of frequency:

☐ § 2304(16)(a): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or policy provisions relating to coverage at issue
☐ § 2304(16)(b): Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies
☐ § 2304(16)(c): Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims
☐ § 2304(16)(d): Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information
☐ § 2304(16)(e): Failing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time after proof-of-loss statements have been completed
☐ § 2304(16)(f): Not attempting in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear
☐ § 2304(16)(g): Compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by such insureds
☐ § 2304(16)(h): Attempting to settle below the amount a reasonable person would believe was owed by reference to written or printed advertising material accompanying or made part of the application
☐ § 2304(16)(n): Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement

We will document the selected concerns and any evidence of a general business practice for the Delaware Insurance Commissioner.

VII. DAMAGES

A. Contract Damages — Unpaid Policy Benefits

B. Consequential Damages

Under Delaware contract law, consequential damages that were foreseeable at the time of contracting are recoverable. See Tackett, 653 A.2d 254. The Carrier's breach has caused the following foreseeable consequential harms:

C. Emotional Distress Damages

Do not add emotional distress damages merely because the insured reports distress or physical symptoms of distress. The bad faith claim sounds in contract, and the available remedy depends on the particular claim and facts. Pierce v. International Insurance Co. of Illinois, 671 A.2d 1361 (Del. 1996), addressed a workers' compensation policy; Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (Del. 2016), note 20, discusses possible emotional distress damages in a different insurance setting. Counsel should identify and document a legally supported basis before including this component.

☐ Separate basis identified: [IDENTIFY CLAIM AND AUTHORITY]. The supporting facts and evidence are: [________________________________].

☐ No supported basis identified: Emotional distress damages are not included in this demand.

Emotional Distress Damages Claimed, only if separately supported: $[________________]

D. Punitive Damages

Under Tackett v. State Farm, 653 A.2d at 265, punitive damages are available in a Delaware bad faith case where the Carrier's conduct is "outrageous" due to "evil motive" or "reckless indifference to the rights of others." Delaware imposes no statutory cap on punitive damages in such cases.

The Carrier's conduct rises to this level because:

1. [AGGRAVATING FACTOR 1: e.g., "The Carrier denied coverage while its own internal investigation concluded the claim was valid — the denial was manufactured to delay payment"]
2. [AGGRAVATING FACTOR 2: e.g., "The Carrier's adjuster was on a performance incentive program that rewarded claim denials and closures below reserve value"]
3. [AGGRAVATING FACTOR 3: e.g., "The Carrier has been the subject of multiple Delaware DOI regulatory actions for similar conduct in the last five years"]
4. [AGGRAVATING FACTOR 4: e.g., "The Carrier failed to act on favorable medical evidence for over X months, during which our client was unable to pay for required medical care"]

Punitive Damages Sought: $[________________] (To be determined by a Delaware jury — no cap applies)

E. Prejudgment Interest

Claimant also seeks any prejudgment interest recoverable on unpaid policy benefits. The amount and accrual date depend on the policy claim and applicable law. Our settlement demand is $[________________________________] (inclusive of the amounts above).

F. Consumer Fraud Act Scope Check

No Consumer Fraud Act amount is included here. Section 2513(b)(3) excludes matters subject to the Insurance Commissioner's jurisdiction, and § 2513(c) supplies no treble-damages remedy.

G. Damages Summary

VIII. DEMAND

A. Formal Monetary Demand

We hereby formally demand that the Carrier pay the total sum of $[________________________________] as follows:

(Any punitive damages under separately applicable law are reserved for litigation and are not included in this pre-suit demand amount.)

B. Settlement Conditions

In addition to the monetary payment, settlement requires:

1. A full and complete release by the Carrier of all claims, subrogation rights, and liens against our client arising from this matter
2. Withdrawal of any adverse information submitted to ISO ClaimSearch or other industry databases in connection with this claim
3. Written confirmation from the Carrier that all applicable coverage limits have been fully satisfied
4. ☐ Mutual confidentiality agreement regarding settlement terms (optional)
5. ☐ Written acknowledgment that the claim was covered and valid (optional)

IX. TIME-LIMITED NATURE OF THIS DEMAND AND CONSEQUENCES

THIS DEMAND EXPIRES AT 5:00 P.M. EASTERN TIME ON [__/__/____].

The deadline is firm. This is not a courtesy; it reflects the accruing nature of our client's damages and the imminent statute of limitations. Upon expiration of this deadline without acceptance:

1. Litigation will be filed immediately in the Delaware Superior Court for [________________________________] County against the Carrier, seeking:

   • All unpaid policy benefits
   • Consequential damages under Delaware contract law
   • Emotional distress damages, only if a separately supported basis is identified
   • Punitive damages (no statutory cap — Delaware common law; Tackett)
   • Prejudgment interest, if recoverable on the policy claim
   • Attorney's fees as costs if judgment is rendered against an insurer on a property insurance policy (18 Del. C. § 4102)

2. This demand will be withdrawn. Our client will pursue the full measure of all available damages in litigation without limitation, including the punitive damages component.

3. Regulatory complaints will be filed with:

   • Delaware Department of Insurance, Consumer Services Division, 1351 West North Street, Suite 101, Dover, Delaware 19904; Tel: (302) 674-7310; www.delawareinsurance.gov

4. All bad faith evidence will be preserved and presented to the jury, including internal claims handling guidelines, reserve records, performance incentive structures, adjuster instructions, and supervisory approvals.

X. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS NOTICE

XI. DOCUMENT PRESERVATION NOTICE

This letter constitutes formal legal notice to preserve all documents and electronically stored information ("ESI") related to this claim. The Carrier must immediately implement a litigation hold covering, without limitation:

• Complete claim file: all versions, drafts, and iterations
• Internal communications: emails, instant messages, voicemails, meeting notes, and chat logs regarding this claim, including communications about reserves, coverage, and settlement authority
• Reserve documentation: initial reserve setting, all reserve changes, reserve justifications, and approvals at each tier
• Adjuster notes and diaries: all electronic and handwritten notes and activity logs
• Investigation materials: all photographs, videos, inspection reports, and expert evaluations commissioned by the Carrier
• Claim handling guidelines and procedures: all applicable desk manuals, audit instructions, and claims-handling protocols in effect during the handling of this claim
• Training materials: all materials relevant to the type of claim at issue
• Performance metrics: adjuster incentive structures, claim closure quotas, savings goals, and performance reviews
• Supervisor approvals: all approvals, rejections, escalations, and supervisory notes
• Coverage counsel communications: where the Carrier waives privilege by asserting the claim was handled in the normal, routine manner (see Tackett, 653 A.2d at 267 — privilege waiver analysis)
• Quality assurance / audit reports: all QA reviews of this claim or similar claims

Spoliation Warning: Failure to preserve the foregoing will result in a request for spoliation instructions to the jury and an adverse inference instruction. Delaware courts take evidence preservation obligations seriously in bad faith litigation.

XII. REGULATORY COMPLAINT PREVIEW

This letter details conduct that we may report to the Delaware Department of Insurance, Consumer Services Division. Select the supported § 2304(16) allegations and document any general business practice:

☐ Misrepresentation of policy provisions — § 2304(16)(a)
☐ Failure to acknowledge or act reasonably promptly on claim communications — § 2304(16)(b)
☐ Failure to adopt reasonable standards for prompt investigation — § 2304(16)(c)
☐ Failure to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time after completed proof-of-loss statements — § 2304(16)(e)
☐ Failure to attempt good faith settlement when liability is reasonably clear — § 2304(16)(f)
☐ Compelling litigation through grossly inadequate offers — § 2304(16)(g)
☐ Failure to promptly provide a reasonable explanation for denial — § 2304(16)(n)

The Commissioner may issue a cease-and-desist order, impose fines, and in egregious cases, refer the matter for license revocation. See 18 Del. C. § 2306.

XIII. CONCLUSION

[________________________________]'s handling of this claim is a textbook example of the conduct that Delaware's bad faith law was designed to prevent and punish. Our client complied with every policy requirement. The loss is covered. The damages are documented. The Carrier's obligations are clear.

Delaware courts have consistently held that an insurer's implied covenant of good faith requires more than simply making a formal determination — it requires honesty, objectivity, and genuine fair dealing. Tackett, 653 A.2d at 265. The Carrier has fallen far short of this standard.

We strongly urge the Carrier to use this opportunity — before litigation, before a Delaware jury hears the full extent of its conduct, and before this matter is referred to the Delaware Department of Insurance — to resolve this claim fairly and in full.

All rights are reserved.

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]

By: _______________________________________________
[________________________________], Esquire
Delaware Bar No. [________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________], Delaware [________]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Facsimile: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

Counsel for [________________________________]

ENCLOSURES:

• Policy declarations page and all applicable coverage provisions
• Complete claim correspondence chronology
• All damage documentation, medical records, and expert reports
• Contractor estimates / independent appraisal
• Wage loss documentation (if applicable)
• Carrier's denial / underpayment letters
• Internal claims handling guidelines (if previously obtained)

CC:

• [________________________________] (Client)
• Delaware Department of Insurance, Consumer Services Division, 1351 W. North St., Suite 101, Dover, DE 19904 (via separate regulatory complaint filing)

DELAWARE BAD FAITH LAW QUICK REFERENCE

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Tackett v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 653 A.2d 254 (Del. 1995): https://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/supreme-court/1995/653-a-2d-254-1.html
• Casson v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 455 A.2d 361 (Del. Super. 1982)
• Dunlap v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 878 A.2d 434 (Del. 2005): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/de-supreme-court/1481318.html
• Connelly v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 135 A.3d 1271 (Del. 2016): https://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/supreme-court/2016/426-2015.html
• Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 167, 2015 (Del. Jan. 11, 2016), n.20: https://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=234840
• 18 Del. C. § 2304 — Unfair Practices (regulatory): https://law.justia.com/codes/delaware/title-18/chapter-23/section-2304/
• 18 Del. C. § 2312 — Commissioner Regulations: https://delcode.delaware.gov/title18/c023/
• 18 Del. C. § 4102 — attorneys’ fees after property-policy judgment: https://delcode.delaware.gov/title18/c041/sc01/index.html
• 6 Del. C. § 2513 — Delaware Consumer Fraud Act: https://law.justia.com/codes/delaware/title-6/chapter-25/subchapter-ii/section-2513/
• Punitive damages (Delaware common law; no statutory cap) — Tackett v. State Farm, 653 A.2d 254 (Del. 1995): https://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/supreme-court/1995/653-a-2d-254-1.html
• 10 Del. C. § 8106(a)-(b) — contract default and qualifying property-policy clauses: https://delcode.delaware.gov/title10/c081/index.html
• Anderson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., N24C-08-146 EMD (Del. Super. Sept. 19, 2025) — enforcement of a property-policy suit clause: https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=385000
• Chartwell Law — Delaware Bad Faith Guide: https://www.chartwelllaw.com/bad-faith-claims-map/delaware
• Delaware DOI Consumer Complaint Filing: https://insurance.delaware.gov/services/filecomplaint/
• United Policyholders — Delaware Insurance Consumer Rights: https://uphelp.org/claim-guidance-publications/insurance-consumer-rights-in-delaware-2022/
• 50 State Bad Faith Survey (2025): https://uphelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-National-Bad-Faith-Survey.pdf
• White & Williams — Delaware Bad Faith Analysis: https://www.whiteandwilliams.com/resources-alerts-Mental-Anguish-Claims-and-Punitive-Damages-in-Delaware-Plaintiffs-Must-Do-More-Than-Plead