DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PRODUCTS LIABILITY
STATE OF ALASKA
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Alaska ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Alaska
DATE: [Date]
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
[General Counsel / Risk Management / Claims Representative]
[Manufacturer / Distributor / Retailer Name]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]
RE: PRODUCTS LIABILITY CLAIM - SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Claimant: [Client Full Name]
Date of Incident: [Date]
Product: [Product Name, Model Number, Serial Number]
Manufacturer: [Manufacturer Name]
Purchase Date/Location: [Date / Retailer Name]
Claim Number: [If assigned]
Dear [Recipient Name]:
This firm represents [Client Name] in connection with serious personal injuries caused by a defective [Product Name] designed, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by your company. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement pursuant to Alaska law.
I. ALASKA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Governing Law
Alaska products liability claims are governed by common law principles adopting Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability. See Clary v. Fifth Ave. Chrysler Ctr., Inc., 454 P.2d 244 (Alaska 1969); Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871 (Alaska 1979).
B. Theories of Liability Recognized
Alaska recognizes the following products liability theories:
1. Strict Products Liability:
Alaska adopted strict products liability in Clary v. Fifth Ave. Chrysler Ctr., Inc., 454 P.2d 244 (Alaska 1969), following Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. A seller of a defective product is strictly liable for physical harm caused by the defect.
2. Negligence:
Traditional negligence claims for negligent design, manufacture, testing, inspection, and failure to warn. Shanks v. Upjohn Co., 835 P.2d 1189 (Alaska 1992).
3. Breach of Warranty:
Express and implied warranty claims under Alaska's version of the UCC, Alaska Stat. Sections 45.02.313 through 45.02.315.
C. Statute of Limitations
Under Alaska Stat. Section 09.10.070, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including products liability, is two (2) years from the date of injury or when the injury was or should have been discovered. This claim arises from an injury that occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].
D. Statute of Repose
Alaska does not have a statute of repose for products liability claims. Claims may be brought regardless of when the product was manufactured, provided they fall within the statute of limitations.
E. Comparative Fault
Alaska follows pure comparative fault under Alaska Stat. Section 09.17.060. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but recovery is not barred regardless of the degree of fault.
Our client bears no responsibility for this incident: [Describe why]
F. Joint and Several Liability
Under Alaska Stat. Section 09.17.080, Alaska has modified joint and several liability:
- Defendants are jointly and severally liable only if they are more than 50% at fault
- Defendants less than 50% at fault are severally liable only for their proportionate share
- Exception: Defendants acting in concert remain jointly and severally liable
G. Damage Caps
Non-Economic Damages (Alaska Stat. Section 09.17.010):
Alaska caps non-economic damages based on a sliding scale:
- The greater of $400,000 or the injured person's life expectancy in years multiplied by $8,000
- For severe permanent physical impairment or disfigurement: Greater of $1,000,000 or life expectancy x $25,000
Punitive Damages (Alaska Stat. Section 09.17.020):
- Greater of 3x compensatory damages or $500,000
- If defendant's conduct was motivated by financial gain: Greater of 4x compensatory, 4x financial gain, or $7,000,000
H. Punitive Damages Standard
Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's conduct was:
- Outrageous, including acts done with malice or bad motives; or
- Evidenced reckless indifference to the interest of another person
Alaska Stat. Section 09.17.020(b).
II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - SPOLIATION WARNING
YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to this product and claim, including but not limited to:
Product-Related:
- [ ] The subject product and all component parts
- [ ] All exemplar products of the same make and model
- [ ] Design documents, specifications, and engineering drawings
- [ ] Manufacturing records for the subject product
- [ ] Quality control records and inspection reports
- [ ] Testing data and results (pre-market and post-market)
- [ ] Safety assessments and risk analyses
- [ ] FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) documents
- [ ] All versions of owner's manuals, instructions, warnings, and labels
Regulatory and Complaints:
- [ ] Communications with FDA, CPSC, NHTSA, or other regulatory agencies
- [ ] Consumer complaints involving this product
- [ ] Prior claims and lawsuits involving this product
- [ ] Recall notices and service bulletins
Alaska courts recognize spoliation of evidence as grounds for adverse inference instructions and sanctions. Destruction of evidence may result in severe consequences at trial.
III. THE DEFECTIVE PRODUCT
A. Product Identification
| Product Information | Details |
|---|---|
| Product Name | [Full Product Name] |
| Manufacturer | [Manufacturer Name and Address] |
| Model Number | [Model Number] |
| Serial Number | [Serial Number] |
| Date of Manufacture | [Date, if known] |
| Lot/Batch Number | [If known] |
| Date of Purchase | [Purchase Date] |
| Retailer/Seller | [Retailer Name and Location] |
| Purchase Price | $[Amount] |
B. Chain of Distribution
| Entity | Role | Contact |
|---|---|---|
| [Manufacturer Name] | Manufacturer | [Address] |
| [Component Supplier] | Component Manufacturer | [Address] |
| [Distributor Name] | Distributor | [Address] |
| [Retailer Name] | Retailer/Seller | [Address] |
IV. THE DEFECT
A. Nature of Defect - Design Defect
Alaska applies the risk-utility test for design defects, evaluating whether the risks of the design outweigh its benefits. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871 (Alaska 1979). The plaintiff must show that a reasonable alternative design would have reduced the foreseeable risks of harm.
Factors Considered:
1. The magnitude and probability of foreseeable risks of harm
2. The instructions and warnings accompanying the product
3. The nature and strength of consumer expectations
4. The relative advantages and disadvantages of the product and alternatives
5. The likely effects of the alternative design on production costs
The [Product Name] contains a design defect in that:
[Detailed description of design defect]
Alternative Safer Design:
A feasible alternative design existed that would have prevented this injury:
[Describe alternative design]
B. Nature of Defect - Manufacturing Defect
A manufacturing defect exists when the specific product departs from its intended design, making it more dangerous than other products of the same line. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability Section 2(a).
The product at issue:
[Describe manufacturing defect if applicable]
C. Nature of Defect - Failure to Warn
Under Alaska law, a manufacturer has a duty to provide adequate warnings of foreseeable risks of harm. Shanks v. Upjohn Co., 835 P.2d 1189 (Alaska 1992). A warning is inadequate if it fails to alert users to the nature and extent of the danger.
The warnings provided were inadequate because:
[Describe warning deficiencies]
V. THE INCIDENT
A. How the Injury Occurred
On [Date], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe what client was doing with the product]:
[Detailed narrative of the incident]
B. Foreseeable Use
Our client was using the product in a manner that was:
- [ ] Intended by the manufacturer
- [ ] Foreseeable by the manufacturer
- [ ] In accordance with provided instructions
C. Comparative Fault Analysis
Our client exercised reasonable care at all times and bears no responsibility for this incident. Under Alaska's pure comparative fault system, even if any fault were attributable to our client, recovery would only be reduced proportionally, not barred.
VI. LIABILITY ANALYSIS
A. Strict Products Liability
All elements of strict products liability under Alaska law are satisfied:
-
Defective Condition: The product contained a [design / manufacturing / warning] defect as described above.
-
Unreasonably Dangerous: The product was more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect, or the design's risks outweighed its benefits under risk-utility analysis.
-
Defect Existed at Time of Sale: The defect was present when the product left the defendant's control.
-
Causation: The defect was the proximate cause of our client's injuries.
-
Damages: Our client has suffered substantial damages as detailed herein.
B. Negligence
Your company breached its duty of care by:
-
Negligent Design: Designing a product with an unreasonably dangerous characteristic when safer alternatives existed.
-
Negligent Manufacture: Failing to implement adequate quality control procedures.
-
Negligent Failure to Warn: Failing to provide adequate warnings of known dangers.
-
Negligent Testing/Inspection: Failing to adequately test the product before sale.
C. Breach of Warranty
Express Warranty (Alaska Stat. Section 45.02.313):
Your company expressly warranted that [describe warranty]. This warranty was breached.
Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Alaska Stat. Section 45.02.314):
The product was not fit for its ordinary purpose due to the defect.
VII. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF DEFECT
Evidence of your company's prior knowledge of this defect includes:
- [ ] [Number] prior complaints regarding this defect
- [ ] [Number] prior injuries from this defect
- [ ] Recall or service bulletins issued
- [ ] Internal documents acknowledging the defect
Such prior knowledge supports an award of punitive damages under Alaska Stat. Section 09.17.020.
VIII. INJURIES AND DAMAGES
A. Injuries Sustained
As a direct and proximate result of the defective product, our client sustained:
Physical Injuries:
- [ ] [Injury 1]
- [ ] [Injury 2]
- [ ] [Injury 3]
Surgeries and Procedures:
- [ ] [Surgery 1]
- [ ] [Surgery 2]
Permanent Conditions:
- [ ] [Permanent condition 1]
- [ ] [Permanent condition 2]
B. Medical Expenses
| Provider | Service | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| [Provider 1] | [Service] | $[Amount] |
| [Provider 2] | [Service] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL PAST MEDICAL | $[Total] |
Future Medical Expenses: $[Amount]
C. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL LOST WAGES | $[Total] |
D. Non-Economic Damages
Note: Subject to Alaska Stat. Section 09.17.010 caps
- Physical pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Disfigurement
- Loss of enjoyment of life
E. Summary of Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| Pain and Suffering | $[Amount] |
| Disfigurement | $[Amount] |
| Emotional Distress | $[Amount] |
| Loss of Enjoyment of Life | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| TOTAL COMPENSATORY DAMAGES | $[Total] |
F. Punitive Damages
Your company's conduct warrants punitive damages under Alaska Stat. Section 09.17.020. Your company's conduct was outrageous and evidenced reckless indifference to consumer safety.
IX. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Based upon the clear liability of your company under Alaska law and the severe injuries suffered by our client, we hereby demand:
$[DEMAND AMOUNT]
This demand will remain open for forty-five (45) days from the date of this letter, expiring at 5:00 p.m. Alaska Time on [Expiration Date].
X. CONCLUSION
This case involves a defective product that caused serious, permanent injuries to our client. Your company is strictly liable under Alaska products liability law.
If this matter cannot be resolved, we are prepared to file suit in the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, [Judicial District], and to pursue this matter through trial.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Alaska Bar Association No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: [List]
cc: [Client Name]
[File]
ALASKA PRODUCTS LIABILITY PRACTICE NOTES
-
[ ] Pure Comparative Fault: Alaska allows recovery even if plaintiff is more at fault than defendant - only reduced by percentage of fault.
-
[ ] Damage Caps: Be aware of non-economic damage caps under Alaska Stat. Section 09.17.010 (sliding scale based on life expectancy).
-
[ ] Punitive Damages: Capped at greater of 3x compensatory or $500,000 (higher for financial gain motivation). Requires clear and convincing evidence.
-
[ ] Joint and Several Liability: Only applies to defendants more than 50% at fault. Consider allocation among defendants.
-
[ ] Expert Testimony: Required to establish defect and causation in most cases. Alaska R. Evid. 702.
-
[ ] Venue: Superior Court in judicial district where injury occurred or where defendant resides or does business.
-
[ ] Economic Loss Rule: Alaska recognizes the economic loss rule - purely economic losses without physical injury generally require contract-based claims.
-
[ ] Retailer Liability: Retailers may be strictly liable as part of the chain of distribution.
Alaska products liability law is complex. This template must be reviewed and customized by a licensed Alaska attorney before use.