DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PRODUCTS LIABILITY
STATE OF UTAH
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Utah ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Utah
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]
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 the Utah Product Liability Act.
I. UTAH PRODUCTS LIABILITY LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Utah Product Liability Act
Products liability claims in Utah are governed by the Utah Product Liability Act (UPLA), Utah Code Ann. Sections 78B-6-701 through 78B-6-709 (formerly Sections 78-15-1 through 78-15-6). The UPLA provides the framework for strict liability, negligence, and warranty claims.
B. Theories of Liability
Utah recognizes multiple theories of recovery:
1. Strict Products Liability
Utah adopted Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in Ernest W. Hahn, Inc. v. Armco Steel Co., 601 P.2d 152 (Utah 1979). Under Utah Code Ann. Section 78B-6-702:
"A product is defective if it is in a condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer, and the defective condition existed at the time the product was sold."
2. Negligence
A manufacturer has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, inspection, testing, and warnings associated with its products. Interwest Constr. v. Palmer, 923 P.2d 1350 (Utah 1996).
3. Breach of Warranty
Utah recognizes claims under express warranty (Utah Code Ann. Section 70A-2-313), implied warranty of merchantability (Section 70A-2-314), and implied warranty of fitness (Section 70A-2-315).
C. Statute of Limitations
Under Utah Code Ann. Section 78B-2-307, the statute of limitations for personal injury products liability claims is two (2) years from the date of injury. The discovery rule applies where the injury was not reasonably discoverable. Seale v. Gowans, 923 P.2d 1361 (Utah 1996).
D. Statute of Repose
Under Utah Code Ann. Section 78B-6-706, a six (6) year statute of repose applies to product liability actions. No action may be brought more than six years after the date of initial purchase or six years after the product was first installed, unless:
- The manufacturer expressly warranted the product for a longer period
- The cause of action is based on the manufacturer's misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment
E. Design Defect Test
Utah applies a consumer expectations test as the primary standard, asking whether the product was unreasonably dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer. Ernest W. Hahn, Inc. v. Armco Steel Co., 601 P.2d 152 (Utah 1979).
Courts also consider risk-utility factors in evaluating design defect claims, including:
- The gravity of the danger
- The likelihood of danger
- The availability of a safer alternative design
- The ability to eliminate danger without impairing usefulness
- The user's awareness of dangers
Allen v. Minnstar, Inc., 8 F.3d 1470 (10th Cir. 1993) (applying Utah law).
F. Comparative Fault
Utah follows modified comparative fault under Utah Code Ann. Section 78B-5-818. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault. If the plaintiff is 50% or more at fault, recovery is completely barred.
Under Section 78B-6-704, evidence of comparative fault is admissible in products liability actions.
G. Punitive Damages
Under Utah Code Ann. Section 78B-8-201, punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with:
- Willful and malicious conduct; or
- Intentionally fraudulent conduct; or
- Conduct manifesting a knowing and reckless indifference toward the rights of others
Bifurcated Trial: Utah requires bifurcation of punitive damages - the amount is determined separately after liability and compensatory damages are established. Section 78B-8-201(3).
No Statutory Cap: Utah does not impose a statutory cap on punitive damages, but constitutional due process limits apply.
II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - CRITICAL NOTICE
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
- Design documents, specifications, and engineering drawings
- Manufacturing records and quality control documentation
- Testing data and safety assessments
- All versions of warnings, labels, and instructions
Complaints and Claims:
- Prior consumer complaints regarding this product
- Prior claims and lawsuits involving similar defects
- Regulatory correspondence and adverse event reports
Spoliation Warning: Utah courts recognize spoliation remedies and adverse inference instructions. ANY DESTRUCTION OR ALTERATION OF EVIDENCE WILL RESULT IN SEVERE CONSEQUENCES.
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] |
| Date of Purchase | [Purchase Date] |
| Retailer/Seller | [Retailer Name and Location] |
| Purchase Price | $[Amount] |
B. Chain of Distribution
Under the Utah Product Liability Act, the following entities may be liable:
| Entity | Role |
|---|---|
| [Manufacturer Name] | Manufacturer |
| [Component Supplier] | Component Manufacturer |
| [Distributor Name] | Distributor |
| [Retailer Name] | Retailer/Seller |
IV. THE DEFECT
A. Nature of Defect
[DESIGN DEFECT / MANUFACTURING DEFECT / FAILURE TO WARN - Select applicable]
Under Utah Code Ann. Section 78B-6-702, the [Product Name] was defective because it was in a condition unreasonably dangerous to the user:
[Detailed description of the defect, how it created an unreasonably dangerous condition beyond what a consumer would expect]
B. Consumer Expectations Analysis
Under Utah's consumer expectations test:
- An ordinary consumer using the [Product Name] for its intended purpose would not expect [describe the dangerous condition that occurred]
- The product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect
- The defect made the product unreasonably dangerous for its foreseeable use
V. THE INCIDENT AND INJURIES
A. How the Injury Occurred
On [Date], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe use of product] when [describe how the defect caused injury].
B. Injuries Sustained
As a direct and proximate result of the defective product, our client sustained:
Physical Injuries:
- [Injury 1]
- [Injury 2]
- [Injury 3]
Medical Treatment:
- [Treatment summary]
Permanent Effects:
- [Describe any permanent conditions]
VI. DAMAGES
A. Economic Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Total] |
B. Non-Economic Damages
Under Utah law, our client is entitled to compensation for:
- Physical pain and suffering
- Mental anguish and emotional distress
- Loss of enjoyment of life
- Permanent impairment and disfigurement
C. Punitive Damages
[If applicable:]
Your company's conduct in [describe egregious conduct] demonstrates knowing and reckless indifference toward consumer safety, warranting punitive damages under Utah Code Ann. Section 78B-8-201.
D. Summary of Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Total Economic Damages | $[Amount] |
| Total Non-Economic Damages | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL COMPENSATORY DAMAGES | $[Total] |
VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Based upon the clear liability of your company under the Utah Product Liability Act and the substantial damages our client has sustained, 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].
If this matter cannot be resolved, we are prepared to file suit in the District Court for [County] County, Utah, and pursue this matter through trial.
VIII. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED
☐ Medical records and bills
☐ Photographs of the defective product
☐ Photographs of injuries
☐ Employment and wage documentation
☐ Product documentation and warnings
☐ Expert reports (if available)
☐ [Other relevant documentation]
IX. CONCLUSION
This case involves a defective product that caused serious injuries to our client. The product was in an unreasonably dangerous condition under the Utah Product Liability Act, and the injuries were entirely preventable.
We urge you to evaluate this claim seriously and respond with a reasonable settlement offer within the time allowed.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Utah State Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: As noted above
cc: [Client Name]
[File]
UTAH PRODUCTS LIABILITY PRACTICE NOTES
☐ UPLA Framework: Utah Product Liability Act (Utah Code Ann. Sections 78B-6-701 to 78B-6-709) governs products claims.
☐ Consumer Expectations Test: Primary standard for design defects per Ernest W. Hahn, Inc. v. Armco Steel Co., 601 P.2d 152 (Utah 1979).
☐ Modified Comparative Fault: 50% bar rule - plaintiff cannot recover if 50% or more at fault.
☐ Short Repose Period: Six (6) year statute of repose from initial purchase or installation.
☐ Punitive Damages Bifurcation: Punitive damages amount determined in separate proceeding after compensatory verdict.
☐ No Punitive Damages Cap: Utah has no statutory cap; constitutional limits apply.
☐ Expert Testimony: Utah follows Daubert standards for expert testimony. Utah R. Evid. 702.
☐ State-of-the-Art Defense: Evidence of industry standards and state of the art at time of manufacture is admissible.
☐ Seller Liability: Non-manufacturing sellers may be liable under strict liability if in the chain of distribution.
This template is specific to Utah law. Products liability law is complex and varies significantly by jurisdiction. This template must be customized for each case by a licensed Utah attorney.