DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PRODUCTS LIABILITY
STATE OF ARIZONA
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Arizona ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Arizona
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 Arizona law.
I. ARIZONA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Governing Law
Arizona products liability claims are governed by common law principles adopting Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Arizona has adopted strict products liability since O.S. Stapley Co. v. Miller, 103 Ariz. 556, 447 P.2d 248 (1968).
B. Theories of Liability Recognized
Arizona recognizes the following products liability theories:
1. Strict Products Liability:
Arizona adopted strict products liability in O.S. Stapley Co. v. Miller, 103 Ariz. 556, 447 P.2d 248 (1968). A seller of a defective product unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer is strictly liable for physical harm caused. See also Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co., 153 Ariz. 400, 737 P.2d 376 (1987).
2. Negligence:
Traditional negligence claims for negligent design, manufacture, testing, and failure to warn. Dart v. Wiebe Mfg., Inc., 147 Ariz. 242, 709 P.2d 876 (1985).
3. Breach of Warranty:
Express and implied warranty claims under Arizona's version of the UCC, A.R.S. Sections 47-2313 through 47-2315.
C. Statute of Limitations
Under A.R.S. Section 12-542, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including products liability, is two (2) years from the date of injury. This claim arises from an injury that occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].
D. Statute of Repose
IMPORTANT: Under A.R.S. Section 12-551, Arizona has a twelve (12) year statute of repose for products liability claims. No action may be brought more than 12 years after the product was first sold for use or consumption, unless the manufacturer expressly warranted the product for a longer period.
The product at issue was first sold on [Date], and therefore [is within / is subject to analysis regarding] the repose period.
E. Comparative Fault
Arizona follows pure comparative fault under A.R.S. Section 12-2505. 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
Arizona has abolished joint and several liability under A.R.S. Section 12-2506. Each defendant is liable only for their proportionate share of fault, except:
- Defendants acting in concert remain jointly liable
- Certain intentional torts
- Environmental contamination claims
- Hazardous waste claims
G. Punitive Damages
Punitive damages are available in Arizona upon clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with an "evil mind" - either intended to injure or was consciously aware of a substantial risk of harm and proceeded in conscious disregard of that risk. Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 726 P.2d 565 (1986).
Arizona has no statutory cap on punitive damages, but they must bear a reasonable relationship to compensatory damages.
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
Arizona courts recognize spoliation of evidence as grounds for adverse inference instructions and sanctions. Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc., 191 Ariz. 247, 955 P.2d 3 (App. 1997). 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
Arizona applies both the consumer expectation test and risk-utility test for design defects.
Consumer Expectation Test: A product is defective if it is dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer. Dart v. Wiebe Mfg., Inc., 147 Ariz. 242, 709 P.2d 876 (1985).
Risk-Utility Test: When consumer expectations are not definitive, Arizona applies risk-utility balancing. The plaintiff must show that a reasonable alternative design would have reduced the foreseeable risks.
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. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 143 Ariz. 437, 694 P.2d 267 (App. 1984).
The product at issue:
[Describe manufacturing defect if applicable]
C. Nature of Defect - Failure to Warn
Under Arizona law, a manufacturer has a duty to warn of dangers that are known or reasonably foreseeable. A product may be defective due to inadequate instructions or warnings. Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co., 153 Ariz. 400, 737 P.2d 376 (1987).
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 Arizona'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 Arizona law are satisfied:
-
Defective Condition: The product contained a [design / manufacturing / warning] defect as described above.
-
Unreasonably Dangerous: The product was dangerous beyond the expectations of the ordinary consumer, or the design's risks outweighed its benefits.
-
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: Failing to adequately test the product before sale.
C. Breach of Warranty
Express Warranty (A.R.S. Section 47-2313):
Your company expressly warranted that [describe warranty]. This warranty was breached.
Implied Warranty of Merchantability (A.R.S. Section 47-2314):
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 Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 726 P.2d 565 (1986), as it demonstrates conscious disregard for consumer safety.
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
Arizona has no cap on non-economic damages
- 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 Rawlings v. Apodaca. Your company acted with an "evil mind" by consciously disregarding a substantial risk of harm to consumers.
IX. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Based upon the clear liability of your company under Arizona 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. Mountain Standard 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 Arizona products liability law.
If this matter cannot be resolved, we are prepared to file suit in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, County of [County], and to pursue this matter through trial.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
State Bar of Arizona No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: [List]
cc: [Client Name]
[File]
ARIZONA PRODUCTS LIABILITY PRACTICE NOTES
-
[ ] Pure Comparative Fault: Arizona allows recovery even if plaintiff is more at fault - only reduced by percentage of fault.
-
[ ] Statute of Repose: 12-year repose period under A.R.S. Section 12-551. Verify product was first sold within 12 years.
-
[ ] Several Liability Only: Joint and several liability abolished - each defendant pays only proportionate share (A.R.S. Section 12-2506).
-
[ ] No Damage Caps: Arizona has no caps on compensatory damages (economic or non-economic).
-
[ ] Punitive Damages: Requires clear and convincing evidence of "evil mind" - intentional or conscious disregard. No statutory cap.
-
[ ] Expert Testimony: Required to establish defect and causation in most cases. Ariz. R. Evid. 702.
-
[ ] Economic Loss Rule: Arizona recognizes the economic loss rule - purely economic losses require contract-based claims. Flagstaff Affordable Hous. Ltd. P'ship v. Design Alliance, Inc., 223 Ariz. 320, 223 P.3d 664 (2010).
-
[ ] Retailer Liability: Retailers are strictly liable as part of the chain of distribution.
-
[ ] Venue: Superior Court in county where injury occurred or where defendant resides or does business.
Arizona products liability law is complex. This template must be reviewed and customized by a licensed Arizona attorney before use.