DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE

STATE OF MINNESOTA

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

DATE: [Date]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

[Professional / Firm Name]
[Professional Liability Insurance Carrier]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]

RE: PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM - SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Claimant: [Client Full Name]
Date(s) of Negligent Service: [Date or Date Range]
Professional(s): [Professional Name(s) and License Type]
Matter/Project: [Description]
Claim Number: [If assigned]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

This firm represents [Client Name] in connection with the professional malpractice committed by [Professional/Firm Name] in [his/her/their] provision of [type of professional services] services. This letter constitutes formal notice of our client's claim and our demand for settlement.

I. MINNESOTA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Governing Law

Professional malpractice claims in Minnesota are governed by common law negligence principles and contract law. Key precedents include Jerry's Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., 711 N.W.2d 811 (Minn. 2006) and Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant & Von Korff, Ltd., 783 N.W.2d 733 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).

B. Statute of Limitations

Professional Malpractice: Under Minn. Stat. Section 541.05, subd. 1(5), actions for professional malpractice must be commenced within six (6) years from the date of the act or omission giving rise to the claim.

Discovery Rule: Minnesota applies the discovery rule, which provides that the cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff discovers or with reasonable diligence should discover the injury. Dalton v. Dow Chem. Co., 280 Minn. 147 (1968).

Legal Malpractice: The limitations period runs from the date of the alleged negligent act or omission. Antone v. Mirviss, 720 N.W.2d 331 (Minn. 2006).

Relevant Dates in This Matter:
- Date(s) of negligent services: [Date(s)]
- Date of discovery: [Date]
- Six-year limitations period expires: [Date]

C. Comparative Negligence

Minnesota follows a modified comparative negligence system under Minn. Stat. Section 604.01. A plaintiff may recover damages only if their fault is not greater than the combined fault of all persons. If the plaintiff is 50% or more at fault, recovery is barred. Damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.

D. Standard of Care Under Minnesota Law

Under Minnesota law, a professional must exercise that degree of care and skill that is expected of a reasonably competent practitioner in the same class to which the professional belongs, acting in the same or similar circumstances. Blue Water Corp. v. O'Toole, 336 N.W.2d 279 (Minn. 1983).

Key Case Law:

• Attorneys: Must exercise the skill and knowledge ordinarily possessed by members of the profession and must use reasonable care in performing professional duties. Jerry's Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., 711 N.W.2d 811 (Minn. 2006).
• Accountants: Must exercise the standard of care applicable to the profession. Bonhiver v. Graff, 311 Minn. 111 (1976).
• Engineers/Architects: Must perform services with the care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of their profession. City of Eveleth v. Ruble, 302 Minn. 249 (1975).

E. Expert Witness Requirements

Expert testimony is generally required in professional malpractice cases to establish:
1. The applicable standard of care;
2. That the defendant breached that standard; and
3. That the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's damages.

Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, 783 N.W.2d 733 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).

Exception: Expert testimony is not required when the alleged malpractice is so obvious that laypersons can determine it without specialized knowledge.

Certification: We have retained a qualified expert who has reviewed the relevant documents and has concluded that the applicable standard of care was breached and that such breach proximately caused our client's damages.

F. Damage Caps

Minnesota does not impose statutory caps on damages in professional malpractice cases.

G. Privity and Third-Party Claims

Legal Malpractice: Generally requires an attorney-client relationship. Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, 291 N.W.2d 686 (Minn. 1980) (relationship may be established even without formal retention).

Accountant Malpractice: Third parties may recover if the accountant knew the work would be relied upon by the third party. Bonhiver v. Graff, 311 Minn. 111 (1976).

H. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Minnesota recognizes breach of fiduciary duty as a separate cause of action. Toombs v. Daniels, 361 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 1985). Professionals who occupy positions of trust owe fiduciary duties of loyalty and care.

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - LITIGATION HOLD

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to services provided to [Client Name], including but not limited to:

• Complete client file (paper and electronic)
• All correspondence and communications
• Work product, drafts, and notes
• Billing records and time entries
• Engagement letters and contracts
• Emails and electronic communications
• Calendar entries and scheduling records
• Internal memoranda and analysis
• Research materials
• Any recorded statements
• Professional liability insurance policies
• Quality control and review documentation

Modification, destruction, or concealment of any records will result in claims for spoliation, sanctions, and adverse inference instructions under Minnesota law. Patton v. Newmar Corp., 538 N.W.2d 116 (Minn. 1995).

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Engagement and Relationship

[Client Name] engaged [Professional/Firm Name] on or about [Date] to provide [type of professional services]:

Nature of Engagement:
- [Description of services to be provided]
- [Scope of representation/engagement]
- [Key objectives]

Fee Arrangement:
- [Description of fee arrangement]
- [Total fees paid: $Amount]

B. Chronology of Negligent Services

[Date]: [Describe what occurred]

[Date]: [Describe what occurred]

[Date]: [Describe what occurred]

C. The Professional Error(s)

[Describe specifically what the professional(s) did wrong]

D. Discovery of Malpractice

Our client [did not discover / could not have reasonably discovered] the malpractice until [Date], when [describe discovery circumstances].

IV. STANDARD OF CARE VIOLATIONS

A. Applicable Standard of Care

Under Minnesota law, [Defendant Professional] was required to exercise the degree of care and skill expected of a reasonably competent [profession type] acting in the same or similar circumstances.

Based on our expert's analysis, the applicable standard of care required [Defendant] to:

1. [Standard 1]
2. [Standard 2]
3. [Standard 3]

B. Breaches of the Standard of Care

Breach 1: [Detailed description of breach]

Breach 2: [Detailed description of breach]

Breach 3: [Detailed description of breach]

C. Expert Opinion

We have retained [Expert Name], a [licensed/certified] [profession] with [number] years of experience in [relevant area]. [Expert Name] has concluded that:

1. [Defendant Professional] breached the applicable standard of care;
2. These breaches were a direct and proximate cause of [Client Name]'s damages; and
3. Had appropriate professional services been rendered, [describe avoided outcome].

V. CAUSATION

A. "But For" Causation

But for the defendant's breach of the standard of care, our client would not have suffered the damages described herein. This claim satisfies the "but for" test for actual causation.

B. Proximate Causation

The defendant's professional negligence was a proximate cause of our client's damages. The harm suffered was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's breach of duty.

C. Case-Within-A-Case (If Applicable to Legal Malpractice)

[If legal malpractice:] We are prepared to prove that but for counsel's negligence, the underlying matter would have resulted in a more favorable outcome for our client. Jerry's Enters., Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., 711 N.W.2d 811 (Minn. 2006).

VI. DAMAGES

A. Direct Financial Losses

As a direct and proximate result of the defendant's professional negligence, our client has suffered:

Primary Damages:
- [Loss 1]: $[Amount]
- [Loss 2]: $[Amount]
- [Loss 3]: $[Amount]

B. Consequential Damages

C. Professional Fees Paid

D. Interest and Incidental Costs

• Prejudgment interest per Minn. Stat. Section 549.09
• Court costs and filing fees
• Expert witness fees

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based upon the clear breach of professional standards, the extent of our client's damages, and the strength of liability evidence, we hereby demand:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, expiring at 5:00 p.m. Central Time on [Expiration Date].

VIII. RESPONSE AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED

Please provide:

1. All professional liability insurance policies applicable to this claim
2. Policy limits for each applicable policy
3. Any self-insured retention amounts
4. Excess/umbrella coverage information
5. Consent to extend statute of limitations during settlement discussions

IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Engagement agreement/retainer
• Correspondence between client and professional
• Work product demonstrating errors
• Documentation of damages
• Expert curriculum vitae
• Chronology of events

X. CONCLUSION

This case presents clear professional negligence that caused significant financial harm to our client. The defendant's conduct fell below the standard of care required of [profession type] in Minnesota.

We are prepared to litigate this matter in the District Court of [County] County, Minnesota if necessary. However, we believe early resolution serves all parties' interests.

Please respond by the deadline stated above.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Minnesota Attorney License No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

MINNESOTA PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE PRACTICE NOTES

• Six-Year Limitations Period: One of the longer limitations periods for professional malpractice.

• Discovery Rule: Statute runs from when plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the harm.

• Modified Comparative Fault: Recovery barred if plaintiff is 50% or more at fault.

• Expert Testimony Required: Expert witness is generally necessary except for obvious negligence.

• No Damage Caps: No statutory limits on professional malpractice damages.

• Togstad Doctrine: Attorney-client relationship may be established even without formal retention.

• Prejudgment Interest: Calculated per Minn. Stat. Section 549.09 (typically 10% per annum).

• ADR Requirement: Minnesota courts may require alternative dispute resolution.

• Venue: District Court in county where defendant resides or where cause of action arose.

• Punitive Damages: Available for willful indifference per Minn. Stat. Section 549.20.

This template is specific to Minnesota law. Professional malpractice claims require careful attention to limitations periods and expert requirements. Always verify current law and consult with qualified Minnesota counsel.