DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PRODUCTS LIABILITY
STATE OF MARYLAND
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Maryland ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Maryland
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 under Maryland law.
I. MARYLAND-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Products Liability Theories Recognized
Maryland recognizes the following theories of products liability:
1. Strict Liability (Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 402A)
Maryland adopted strict liability for defective products in Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337, 363 A.2d 955 (1976). Under Maryland law, a seller of a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user is subject to liability for physical harm caused by the defect, even without proof of negligence.
2. Negligence
Traditional negligence claims are available for design defects, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. Balbos, 326 Md. 179, 604 A.2d 445 (1992).
3. Breach of Warranty
Express and implied warranties under the Maryland Commercial Law Article (Md. Code Ann., Com. Law Sections 2-313 through 2-315) provide additional bases for recovery.
B. Design Defect Standard
Maryland applies a consumer expectation test as the primary standard for design defect cases. Under Phipps, a product is defective if it is "dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics."
Maryland courts have also considered risk-utility factors in appropriate cases. Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Young, 272 Md. 201, 321 A.2d 737 (1974).
C. Statute of Limitations
Under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 5-101, the statute of limitations for products liability claims is three (3) years from the date of injury. The discovery rule may toll the limitations period in appropriate cases. Poffenberger v. Risser, 290 Md. 631, 431 A.2d 677 (1981).
This claim arises from an incident that occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].
D. Statute of Repose
Maryland does not have a general statute of repose for products liability claims. However, specific statutes may apply to certain products such as improvements to real property.
E. Contributory Negligence - CRITICAL
MARYLAND IS ONE OF THE FEW REMAINING CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE JURISDICTIONS.
Under Maryland law, any contributory negligence by the plaintiff, however slight, is a complete bar to recovery. Harrison v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Educ., 295 Md. 442, 456 A.2d 894 (1983).
Our client was not contributorily negligent. Our client:
- Used the product for its intended purpose
- Followed all instructions and warnings provided
- Had no knowledge of the defect
- Acted as a reasonable consumer would under the circumstances
F. Assumption of Risk
Maryland recognizes assumption of risk as a complete defense in products liability cases. Schroyer v. McNeal, 323 Md. 275, 592 A.2d 1119 (1991). Our client did not assume any risk, as the defect was not open, obvious, or known to our client.
G. Punitive Damages
Under Maryland law, punitive damages are available in products liability cases upon proof of actual malice, which requires a showing that the defendant acted with "evil motive, intent to injure, ill will, or fraud." Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420, 601 A.2d 633 (1992).
Maryland does not impose a statutory cap on punitive damages, but the award must bear a reasonable relationship to the compensatory damages and the defendant's conduct.
H. Non-Economic Damage Caps
Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 11-108 caps non-economic damages in personal injury actions. For claims arising in 2026, the cap is approximately $935,000 (adjusted annually for inflation). This cap applies per plaintiff, not per defendant.
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 and quality control documents
- Testing data and safety assessments
- FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) documents
- Owner's manuals, instructions, warnings, and labels
- Marketing and advertising materials
Complaints and Claims:
- Consumer complaints involving this product or similar products
- Prior claims and lawsuits involving this product
- Regulatory correspondence (CPSC, FDA, NHTSA)
- Recall notices and service bulletins
Maryland recognizes spoliation sanctions. Anderson v. Litzenberg, 115 Md. App. 549, 694 A.2d 150 (1997). Destruction of evidence may result in adverse inferences and monetary sanctions.
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
The following entities are in the chain of distribution and may bear liability under Maryland law:
| Entity | Role |
|---|---|
| [Manufacturer Name] | Manufacturer |
| [Component Supplier] | Component Manufacturer |
| [Distributor Name] | Distributor |
| [Retailer Name] | Retailer/Seller |
C. Product Description
[Describe the product, its intended use, and relevant safety considerations]
IV. THE DEFECT
A. Nature of Defect
[SELECT AND CUSTOMIZE APPLICABLE THEORY:]
DESIGN DEFECT:
The [Product Name] contains a design defect that renders it unreasonably dangerous. Under the consumer expectation test applied in Maryland, the product was more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect when using it in its intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.
[Detailed description of design defect]
A feasible alternative design existed that would have prevented the injury:
[Describe alternative design]
MANUFACTURING DEFECT:
The specific [Product Name] involved departed from its intended design due to a manufacturing defect:
[Detailed description of manufacturing defect]
FAILURE TO WARN:
The manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings regarding known risks:
[Describe inadequate warnings and what adequate warnings should have stated]
V. THE INCIDENT
A. How the Injury Occurred
On [Date], at approximately [Time], our client was using the [Product Name] for its intended purpose when [describe what happened].
[Detailed narrative of the incident]
B. Foreseeable Use
Our client was using the product:
- For its intended purpose
- In accordance with provided instructions
- In a manner consistent with product marketing
- As a reasonable consumer would
C. Causation
The defect was the direct and proximate cause of our client's injuries. The injuries would not have occurred but for the defect.
VI. LIABILITY ANALYSIS
A. Strict Liability
Under Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337 (1976), your company is strictly liable because:
- The product was in a defective condition when it left your control
- The defect made the product unreasonably dangerous
- The defect caused our client's injuries
- Our client suffered damages
B. Negligence
Your company was negligent in:
- Designing a product with an unreasonable risk of harm
- Failing to adequately test the product
- Failing to provide adequate warnings
- Failing to implement adequate quality control
C. Breach of Warranty
The product breached:
- Express Warranty: [Describe any express warranties]
- Implied Warranty of Merchantability: Md. Code Ann., Com. Law Section 2-314
- Implied Warranty of Fitness: Md. Code Ann., Com. Law Section 2-315
D. No Contributory Negligence
Our client exercised all reasonable care in using this product and bears no responsibility for the incident. Your company cannot establish the affirmative defense of contributory negligence.
VII. INJURIES AND DAMAGES
A. Physical Injuries
As a direct and proximate result of the defective product, our client sustained:
[List specific injuries with diagnoses]
B. Medical Treatment
Emergency Treatment:
- Date: [Date]
- Facility: [Hospital Name]
- Treatment: [Description]
Subsequent Treatment:
[Detail all treatment received]
C. Medical Expenses
| Provider | Service | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| [Provider] | [Service] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL PAST MEDICAL | $[Total] |
Future Medical Expenses: $[Amount]
D. Lost Wages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL | $[Total] |
E. Non-Economic Damages
[Describe pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life]
Note: Non-economic damages are subject to Maryland's statutory cap of approximately $935,000 for claims arising in 2026.
F. Summary of Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earnings | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| Pain and Suffering | $[Amount] |
| Emotional Distress | $[Amount] |
| Loss of Enjoyment of Life | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL NON-ECONOMIC | $[Subtotal] |
| TOTAL DAMAGES | $[Grand Total] |
G. Punitive Damages
[If applicable:]
Your company's conduct demonstrates actual malice warranting punitive damages under Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420 (1992):
[Describe conduct supporting punitive damages]
VIII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Based upon the clear liability and substantial damages, we hereby demand:
$[DEMAND AMOUNT]
This demand will remain open for forty-five (45) days from the date of this letter, expiring on [Expiration Date].
IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED
- Medical records and bills
- Photographs of the product and defect
- Photographs of injuries
- Employment and wage documentation
- Expert reports (if available)
- Product documentation and warnings
- [Other relevant documentation]
X. CONCLUSION
This case involves a defective product that caused serious injuries to our client. Liability is clear, and damages are substantial. We urge you to evaluate this claim seriously and respond with a fair settlement offer.
If this matter cannot be resolved, we are prepared to file suit in the Circuit Court of [County], Maryland, and pursue this matter through trial.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Maryland Bar Number: [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: As noted above
cc: [Client Name]
File
MARYLAND-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES
Contributory Negligence: Maryland is one of only four states plus D.C. that retains pure contributory negligence. Any fault by plaintiff is a complete bar. Carefully document that client was not negligent.
Non-Economic Cap: The cap increases annually. Verify current cap at time of filing.
Joint and Several Liability: Maryland retains joint and several liability for economic damages. Non-economic damages are several only.
Expert Testimony: Expert testimony is typically required to establish defect and causation under Phipps.
Punitive Damages: Require proof of actual malice. Available only against the party whose conduct warrants punishment - not vicariously.
Statute of Limitations: Three years with discovery rule. Consider tolling for minors or incapacitated persons.