DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PRODUCTS LIABILITY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Washington ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Washington
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 Washington Product Liability Act.
I. WASHINGTON PRODUCTS LIABILITY LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA)
Products liability claims in Washington are governed by the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA), RCW Chapter 7.72. The WPLA is the exclusive remedy for product-related claims, consolidating all product-based theories into a single cause of action. Wash. Water Power Co. v. Graybar Elec. Co., 112 Wn.2d 847, 774 P.2d 1199 (1989).
B. Theories of Liability
Under the WPLA, RCW 7.72.030, a product manufacturer is subject to liability if:
1. Unsafe Design (RCW 7.72.030(1)(a))
The product was not reasonably safe as designed. The claimant must prove:
- The product was not reasonably safe as designed
- The manufacturer could have designed the product to be more safe
- A reasonable safer alternative design was available
2. Manufacturing Defect (RCW 7.72.030(2)(a))
The product was not reasonably safe because it deviated in a material way from the design specifications or from otherwise identical units.
3. Failure to Warn (RCW 7.72.030(1)(b) and (1)(c))
The product was not reasonably safe because:
- Adequate warnings or instructions were not provided; or
- The product failed to conform to express representations by the manufacturer
C. Statute of Limitations
Under RCW 4.16.080(2), the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including products liability, is three (3) years from the date of injury. The discovery rule applies where the claimant did not know and could not reasonably have known of the claim. Allen v. State, 118 Wn.2d 753, 826 P.2d 200 (1992).
D. Statute of Repose (Useful Safe Life Limitation)
Under RCW 7.72.060(1), Washington has a "useful safe life" limitation rather than a traditional statute of repose:
- A product is presumed not to have caused the harm if the harm occurred more than twelve (12) years after the product was delivered to its first purchaser or lessee
- This presumption is rebuttable
- The limitation does not apply to certain products or where the manufacturer has expressly warranted the product for a longer period
E. Design Defect Test
Washington applies a risk-utility balancing test for design defects under RCW 7.72.030(1)(a). A product is not reasonably safe if:
The likelihood and severity of the danger, together with the feasibility of a safer alternative design, outweighs the additional cost and burden of designing the product with the safer alternative.
Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Tabert, 86 Wn.2d 145, 542 P.2d 774 (1975) established the risk-utility analysis for Washington.
F. Pure Comparative Fault
Washington follows pure comparative fault under RCW 4.22.005. A claimant's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but recovery is not barred regardless of the degree of fault. Even a claimant who is 99% at fault may recover 1% of damages.
G. Punitive Damages
IMPORTANT: Washington does not recognize punitive damages in civil cases absent specific statutory authorization. Henderson v. Pennwalt Corp., 41 Wn. App. 547, 704 P.2d 1256 (1985).
However, in cases involving egregious conduct, Washington may allow recovery under:
- Consumer Protection Act (RCW Chapter 19.86) - treble damages
- Other specific statutes allowing enhanced damages
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: Washington courts recognize adverse inference instructions and sanctions for spoliation of evidence. Henderson v. Tyrell, 80 Wn. App. 592, 910 P.2d 522 (1996). 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 WPLA, the following entities may be liable:
| Entity | Role | WPLA Status |
|---|---|---|
| [Manufacturer Name] | Manufacturer | Liable under RCW 7.72.030 |
| [Component Supplier] | Component Manufacturer | Potentially liable |
| [Retailer Name] | Product Seller | Limited liability under RCW 7.72.040 |
Note on Seller Liability: Under RCW 7.72.040, product sellers (as opposed to manufacturers) have limited liability unless they participated in design, exercised substantial control over the product, made express warranties, or the manufacturer is not subject to service of process.
IV. THE DEFECT
A. Nature of Defect
[UNSAFE DESIGN / MANUFACTURING DEFECT / FAILURE TO WARN - Select applicable]
Under RCW 7.72.030, the [Product Name] was not reasonably safe because:
[Detailed description of the defect and how it rendered the product unsafe]
B. Risk-Utility Analysis
Under Washington's risk-utility test:
- The likelihood and severity of harm from the [Product Name]'s design were substantial
- A reasonable safer alternative design was feasible
- The cost and burden of implementing the safer design were not prohibitive
- The utility of the challenged design did not outweigh its dangers
- A reasonable manufacturer would have adopted the safer alternative
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 Washington 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
- Loss of consortium [if applicable]
C. Summary of Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Total Economic Damages | $[Amount] |
| Total Non-Economic Damages | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL COMPENSATORY DAMAGES | $[Total] |
Note: Washington does not permit punitive damages in civil actions absent specific statutory authorization.
VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Based upon the clear liability of your company under the Washington 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 Superior Court for [County] County, Washington, 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 not reasonably safe under the Washington 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]
Washington State Bar Association No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: As noted above
cc: [Client Name]
[File]
WASHINGTON PRODUCTS LIABILITY PRACTICE NOTES
☐ WPLA Exclusive Remedy: The Washington Product Liability Act (RCW Chapter 7.72) provides the exclusive remedy for product claims.
☐ Risk-Utility Test: Washington applies risk-utility balancing for design defects per Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Tabert.
☐ Pure Comparative Fault: Washington allows recovery regardless of plaintiff's percentage of fault - recovery reduced proportionally.
☐ No Punitive Damages: Washington does not permit common law punitive damages. Consider Consumer Protection Act claims for treble damages.
☐ Useful Safe Life Limitation: 12-year rebuttable presumption that product did not cause harm if delivered more than 12 years before injury.
☐ Seller Protections: Non-manufacturing sellers have limited liability under RCW 7.72.040.
☐ Expert Testimony: Washington follows Frye standard for scientific evidence. State v. Copeland, 130 Wn.2d 244, 922 P.2d 1304 (1996).
☐ Consumer Protection Act: Consider CPA claims (RCW 19.86) for unfair or deceptive acts - allows treble damages and attorney fees.
☐ Joint and Several Liability: Generally abolished; each defendant liable only for their percentage of fault. RCW 4.22.070.
This template is specific to Washington law. Products liability law is complex and varies significantly by jurisdiction. This template must be customized for each case by a licensed Washington attorney.