DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PRODUCTS LIABILITY

STATE OF MICHIGAN

[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Michigan ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Michigan

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 Michigan law.

I. MICHIGAN-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Michigan Product Liability Act

Michigan products liability claims are governed by the Michigan Product Liability Act (MPLA), M.C.L. Sections 600.2945 through 600.2949a. This comprehensive statute establishes the exclusive theories of recovery, standards of proof, and available defenses in products liability cases.

B. Products Liability Theories Recognized

Under the MPLA, a plaintiff may recover based on the following theories:

1. Manufacturing Defect (M.C.L. Section 600.2945(c))

A product has a manufacturing defect if it "deviated from the manufacturer's design specifications or from otherwise identical units of the same product line." Manufacturing defect claims impose liability regardless of the manufacturer's care.

2. Design Defect (M.C.L. Section 600.2946)

A product has a design defect if there was a "practical and technically feasible alternative design that would have prevented the harm without significantly impairing the usefulness, practicality, cost, or desirability of the product to users."

3. Failure to Warn (M.C.L. Section 600.2948)

A manufacturer may be liable for failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions regarding foreseeable risks of harm.

4. Breach of Express Warranty (M.C.L. Section 600.2945)

The MPLA incorporates warranty claims, including breach of express warranty.

C. Design Defect Standard - Risk-Utility Test

Michigan applies a risk-utility test for design defect claims under M.C.L. Section 600.2946. The plaintiff must prove:

1. There was a practical and technically feasible alternative design
2. The alternative design would have prevented the harm
3. The alternative design would not have significantly impaired the usefulness, practicality, cost, or desirability of the product

Courts consider factors including:
- The magnitude of the risk
- The feasibility of an alternative design
- The cost of the alternative design
- The adverse consequences of the alternative design

D. Statute of Limitations

Under M.C.L. Section 600.5805(2), the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including products liability, is three (3) years from the date of injury.

The discovery rule may toll the limitations period until the plaintiff discovers, or should have discovered, the injury and its cause. Trentadue v. Gorton, 479 Mich. 378, 738 N.W.2d 664 (2007).

This claim arises from an incident that occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].

E. Statute of Repose

Michigan does not have a statute of repose for products liability claims. The legislature repealed the prior 10-year statute of repose in 1995.

F. Comparative Negligence

Michigan follows modified comparative negligence under M.C.L. Section 600.2959. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, and recovery is barred if the plaintiff is 50% or more at fault.

Our client bears no responsibility for this incident. Our client:
- Used the product for its intended purpose
- Followed all instructions and warnings
- Acted as a reasonable consumer would

G. Punitive Damages

Michigan generally does not allow punitive damages in products liability cases. Casey v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 273 Mich. App. 388, 729 N.W.2d 277 (2006). Exemplary damages are only available where specifically authorized by statute.

H. Innocent Seller Defense

Under M.C.L. Section 600.2947(6), a seller (other than the manufacturer) may be dismissed from a products liability action unless:
- The seller failed to exercise reasonable care
- The seller made express representations about the product
- The manufacturer is insolvent or not subject to jurisdiction

I. Government Standards Defense

Under M.C.L. Section 600.2946(4), compliance with applicable government standards at the time of manufacture creates a rebuttable presumption that the product is not defective.

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

Michigan courts recognize spoliation sanctions. Brenner v. Kolk, 226 Mich. App. 149, 573 N.W.2d 65 (1997). Destruction of evidence may result in adverse inferences and other sanctions.

III. THE DEFECTIVE PRODUCT

A. Product Identification

B. Chain of Distribution

The following entities are in the chain of distribution and may bear liability under Michigan law:

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 (M.C.L. Section 600.2946):

The [Product Name] contains a design defect as defined under the Michigan Product Liability Act. A practical and technically feasible alternative design existed that would have prevented the harm:

[Detailed description of design defect and alternative design]

The alternative design:
- Was technically feasible at the time of manufacture
- Would have prevented our client's injury
- Would not have significantly impaired the product's usefulness, practicality, cost, or desirability

MANUFACTURING DEFECT (M.C.L. Section 600.2945(c)):

The specific [Product Name] involved deviated from the manufacturer's design specifications:

[Detailed description of manufacturing defect and how it deviates from specifications]

FAILURE TO WARN (M.C.L. Section 600.2948):

The manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings regarding foreseeable 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. Design Defect Liability

Under M.C.L. Section 600.2946, your company is liable for design defect because:

1. A practical and technically feasible alternative design existed
2. The alternative design would have prevented the harm
3. The alternative would not have significantly impaired the product's utility or value

B. Manufacturing Defect Liability

Under M.C.L. Section 600.2945(c), your company is liable because:

1. The product deviated from the manufacturer's design specifications
2. The deviation rendered the product dangerous
3. The defect caused our client's injuries

C. Failure to Warn Liability

Under M.C.L. Section 600.2948, your company is liable because:

1. You knew or should have known of the danger
2. You failed to provide adequate warnings
3. The failure to warn was a proximate cause of the injury

D. Comparative Fault

Our client exercised all reasonable care and bears no percentage of fault for this incident. Under M.C.L. Section 600.2959, your company cannot establish comparative 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

Future Medical Expenses: $[Amount]

D. Lost Wages

E. Non-Economic Damages

[Describe pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life]

F. Summary of 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 under the Michigan Product Liability Act, 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], Michigan, and pursue this matter through trial.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Michigan Bar Number: P[Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

MICHIGAN-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

Michigan Product Liability Act: The MPLA is the exclusive source of products liability law in Michigan. Familiarize yourself with all provisions.

Design Defect Standard: The risk-utility test with emphasis on feasible alternative design is plaintiff's burden. Expert testimony is essential.

No Punitive Damages: Michigan does not allow punitive damages in products liability cases. Do not include punitive damage claims.

Comparative Negligence: 50% bar rule - plaintiff cannot recover if 50% or more at fault.

Government Standards Defense: Compliance with government standards creates rebuttable presumption product is not defective.

Innocent Seller Defense: Non-manufacturer sellers may be dismissed unless specific exceptions apply.

Expert Affidavit Requirement: Under M.C.L. Section 600.2912d, an affidavit of merit may be required in certain cases. Verify current requirements.

No Statute of Repose: Michigan does not have a statute of repose for products liability.