Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Indiana

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF INDIANA

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

DATE: [Date]

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

[Claims Representative Name / General Counsel]
[Property Owner / Management Company / Insurance Company Name]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]

RE: PREMISES LIABILITY DEMAND - SLIP AND FALL
Our Client: [Client Full Name]
Date of Incident: [Date of Fall]
Location of Incident: [Full Address of Property]
Property Owner: [Property Owner Name]
Claim Number: [Claim Number, if assigned]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

This firm represents [Client Name] ("Claimant") for injuries sustained on [Date of Incident] at premises owned and/or controlled by your insured/client, located at [Property Address], [County] County, Indiana. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement and provides a comprehensive analysis of liability under Indiana law, our client's injuries, and damages.

I. INDIANA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under Indiana Code Section 34-11-2-4, an action for injury to a person generally must be commenced within two (2) years after the cause of action accrues. Claims against governmental entities also require timely notice as discussed below. Based on counsel's case-specific accrual and tolling analysis, the present filing deadline is [Expiration Date].

B. Indiana Premises Liability Duty Standards

Indiana employs the traditional common law classifications of entrants onto land. The duty owed by a landowner depends on the status of the entrant as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser. Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 1991).

Our client was a business invitee on your insured's premises, having entered for a purpose connected with the landowner's business or with an activity the landowner conducts on the land.

Indiana describes the invitee duty as its highest entrant-based duty: reasonable care for the invitee's protection. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343, adopted in Burrell, condition-based liability requires that the possessor:

1. Knew or through reasonable care would discover a condition posing an unreasonable risk;
2. Should expect that invitees will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves; and
3. Failed to exercise reasonable care to protect them.

Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 1991).

C. Knowledge Requirement Under Indiana Law

Under Indiana law, a landowner is liable for an injury caused by a dangerous condition only if the landowner:

1. Created the condition; OR
2. Actually knew of the condition; OR
3. By the exercise of reasonable care, could have discovered the condition (constructive knowledge).

Schulz v. Kroger Co., 963 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

Constructive Knowledge requires evidence supporting an inference that the condition existed long enough that reasonable care would have discovered it. Inspection timing, condition duration, and recurring-location evidence may be relevant.

D. Modified Comparative Fault

Indiana follows a modified comparative fault rule with a 51% bar. Under Indiana Code Section 34-51-2-6, a claimant is barred if the claimant's fault is greater than the fault of all persons whose fault proximately contributed to the damages; otherwise damages are reduced by claimant fault. The Comparative Fault Act does not apply to Tort Claims Act defendants. Ind. Code § 34-51-2-2.

Our client exercised reasonable care and bears no fault for this incident.

E. Mode of Operation Doctrine in Indiana

Indiana does not impose a heightened standard on self-service businesses. The method of operation is one circumstance in deciding what reasonable care required, but it does not automatically establish constructive notice.

Golba v. Kohl's Department Store, Inc., 585 N.E.2d 14, 15-17 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992).

[If applicable:] The self-service operation is relevant because [specific practice and location], together with [inspection or duration evidence], supports a finding that reasonable care required additional precautions.

F. Snow and Ice Liability in Indiana

Indiana has rejected a categorical rule that eliminates an invitee duty for natural snow or ice. A landowner must use reasonable care under the circumstances to maintain business sidewalks and parking lots. The landowner is entitled to actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable opportunity to respond, but Indiana does not require the weather event to end before the reasonable-care duty can attach. Henderson v. Reid Hospital & Healthcare Services, 17 N.E.3d 311, 317-21 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014); Hammond v. Allegretti, 311 N.E.2d 821, 825-28 (Ind. 1974).

[If applicable:] Your insured had [actual / constructive] notice because [facts] and a reasonable opportunity to [warn / treat / clear] the area before the fall.

G. Invitee Awareness and Comparative Fault

The § 343 duty asks whether the possessor should expect invitees will not discover or realize the danger or will fail to protect themselves. The claimant's knowledge and conduct may also affect comparative fault; they do not create the categorical no-duty rule formerly stated here. Burrell, 569 N.E.2d at 639-40.

[If applicable:] The condition was not known or reasonably apparent to our client because [explain], and your insured should have expected invitees would not discover or avoid it because [facts].

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to this incident and the subject premises, including but not limited to:

• All surveillance video footage from the date of incident (interior and exterior cameras)
• Surveillance footage from 48 hours before and after the incident
• Incident/accident reports prepared by employees or management
• Witness statements taken at the time of incident
• Maintenance logs and repair records for the area of the fall
• Inspection records and checklists for the date of incident and prior 12 months
• Cleaning schedules and logs
• Weather records and reports from the date of incident
• Prior complaints regarding the hazardous condition
• Prior incidents or falls at the same or similar location
• Work orders and maintenance requests for the area
• Photographs of the incident location
• Written policies and procedures for maintenance, inspection, and safety
• Training records for employees responsible for premises safety
• All communications regarding the incident
• Insurance policies applicable to this claim

Indiana does not recognize an independent first-party tort for spoliation by a party to the underlying case. Intentional first-party destruction may support an unfavorable-evidence inference, and discovery violations may support sanctions under Indiana Trial Rule 37. Gribben v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 824 N.E.2d 349, 351-55 (Ind. 2005). Please suspend routine deletion or overwriting of the identified material.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Premises

The incident occurred at [Property Address], [County] County, Indiana, which is [describe property type - e.g., "a retail shopping center," "a grocery store," "a restaurant," "an apartment complex," "an office building," "a hotel," etc.]. At all relevant times, [Property Owner Name] owned, operated, possessed, maintained, and/or controlled the subject premises.

[If property manager involved:]
[Management Company Name] was responsible for the day-to-day management, maintenance, inspection, and safety of the premises.

B. The Hazardous Condition

On the date of the incident, a dangerous and hazardous condition existed on the premises, specifically: [Describe the hazardous condition in detail - e.g., liquid on the floor, uneven surface, ice accumulation, debris, etc.]

[Describe condition characteristics that establish notice - e.g., dirty appearance, tracked footprints, size of spill, duration based on witness testimony, weather conditions, etc.]

C. The Incident

On [Date of Incident], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe what client was doing] when [he/she] encountered the hazardous condition described above. [Detailed narrative of the fall, including what client was doing, how the fall occurred, what body parts impacted the ground, etc.]

Our client did not observe the hazardous condition prior to the fall because [explain why - e.g., the substance was clear, lighting was inadequate, attention was appropriately directed elsewhere, condition was concealed, etc.].

D. Your Insured's Knowledge

[Select and customize applicable theory:]

Created the Condition: Your insured or its employees created the hazardous condition by [describe].

Actual Knowledge: Your insured had actual knowledge of the hazardous condition based on:

• [Prior complaints about the condition]
• [Employee awareness of the condition]
• [Other evidence]

Constructive Knowledge: Your insured had constructive knowledge because:

• The hazardous condition existed for a sufficient length of time such that it should have been discovered through reasonable inspection
• [Describe evidence of duration - appearance, witness testimony, etc.]
• [Describe inadequate inspection procedures]

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Duty of Care

As established above, your insured owed our client, a business invitee, a duty of reasonable care for the invitee's protection under the condition-based framework in Burrell.

B. Breach of Duty

Your insured breached this duty by:

1. Failing to discover the hazardous condition through reasonable inspection;
2. Failing to remediate the hazardous condition;
3. Failing to warn of the hazardous condition;
4. Failing to implement adequate inspection and maintenance procedures;
5. [Additional breaches specific to the case]

C. Causation

The hazardous condition was the direct and proximate cause of our client's fall and resulting injuries. But for your insured's negligence in allowing this dangerous condition to exist, our client would not have fallen and would not have sustained the injuries detailed herein.

D. Comparative Fault - Rebutted

Our client exercised reasonable care for [his/her] own safety. The cited Plonski decision concerns a third-party criminal assault and does not establish a rule excusing invitees from watching for floor hazards. The evidence here instead shows that our client:

• Used ordinary care while traversing the premises;
• Directed attention reasonably under the circumstances;
• Did not know and appreciate the danger because [explain].

V. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

A. Summary of Injuries

As a direct and proximate result of the fall, our client sustained the following injuries:

Primary Diagnoses:

• [Injury 1]
• [Injury 2]
• [Injury 3]

B. Treatment Summary

Emergency Treatment - [Date]:

• Provider: [Hospital/Facility Name]
• Treatment: [Description]
• Findings: [Diagnosis, imaging results]

Follow-Up Care:

• Provider: [Name]
• Dates: [Range]
• Treatment: [Description]

Specialist Care:

• Provider: [Name, Specialty]
• Dates: [Range]
• Treatment: [Description]

Physical Therapy/Rehabilitation:

• Provider: [Name]
• Duration: [Sessions/weeks]
• Treatment: [Description]

Surgical Intervention (if applicable):

• Procedure: [Description]
• Date: [Date]
• Surgeon: [Name, Facility]

C. Current Status and Prognosis

[Describe current condition, maximum medical improvement status, permanent impairment, ongoing symptoms, and future treatment needs]

VI. DAMAGES

A. Past Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses

Based on our client's treating physicians' opinions, future medical care will include:

C. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity

D. Pain and Suffering / Non-Economic Damages

Our client has experienced significant pain, suffering, and diminished quality of life:

• Physical pain from injuries sustained
• Emotional distress, anxiety, and depression
• Loss of enjoyment of life and recreational activities
• Interference with family relationships and activities
• Permanent impairment and scarring
• [Other non-economic damages specific to case]

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based upon the available liability evidence, the severity of our client's injuries, and the documented damages, we hereby demand the sum of:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

[OR - Policy Limits Demand:]

TENDER OF THE FULL POLICY LIMITS OF $[AMOUNT]

This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, through and including [Expiration Date].

Should you fail to respond to this demand within the specified time, or should you fail to make a reasonable offer, we will file suit in the [County] Circuit Court or Superior Court, Indiana, without further notice.

VIII. POLICY-LIMITS COMMUNICATION

[For policy limits or excess exposure cases:]

Our client's documented damages may exceed available policy limits. Please disclose all potentially applicable coverage as permitted by law, evaluate this demand promptly, and communicate it and any limits issue to your insured. Erie Insurance Co. v. Hickman, 622 N.E.2d 515 (Ind. 1993), involved first-party policy handling and does not itself establish automatic third-party excess liability.

IX. GOVERNMENT ENTITY CLAIMS

[USE THIS SECTION ONLY IF DEFENDANT IS GOVERNMENT ENTITY]

The Indiana Tort Claims Act has entity-specific notice routes. Under Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-6, a State claim is generally barred unless notice is filed with the Attorney General or involved State agency within 270 days after the loss. Under Section 34-13-3-8, a political-subdivision claim generally requires notice to its governing body and, when the statutory risk-management route applies, the designated commission within 180 days after the loss. Section 34-13-3-4 generally caps liability at $700,000 for injury to or death of one person and $5,000,000 for all persons in one occurrence, and bars punitive damages. The Comparative Fault Act does not apply to Tort Claims Act defendants. Ind. Code § 34-51-2-2. [Required notice has been filed / is being filed concurrently.]

X. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

The following documents are enclosed in support of this demand:

• Complete medical records from all treating providers
• Itemized medical bills
• Photographs of the incident location
• Photographs of our client's injuries
• Incident report (if obtained)
• Employment records and wage verification
• [Other supporting documentation]
• HIPAA authorizations

XI. CONCLUSION

The available evidence supports liability because your insured [created / actually knew of / reasonably should have discovered] the condition and failed to take reasonable corrective or warning measures. Our client exercised reasonable care under the circumstances. We urge you to give this matter prompt attention.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

INDIANA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Modified Comparative Fault: Under Ind. Code Section 34-51-2-6, plaintiff is barred from recovery if more than 50% at fault.

• Allocation: In a multi-defendant jury action governed by the Comparative Fault Act, Indiana Code Section 34-51-2-8 directs a fault percentage and proportionate verdict against each defendant, including defendants liable through a relationship. Statutory exclusions and vicarious-liability principles require separate analysis.

• Snow and Ice: Natural accumulation does not eliminate the reasonable-care duty. Notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond are central. Henderson.

• Punitive Damages: Indiana Code Section 34-51-3-2 requires clear and convincing proof of supporting facts. Section 34-51-3-4 caps an award at the greater of three times compensatory damages or $50,000, and Section 34-51-3-6 allocates 25% to the claimant and 75% to the State fund. Ordinary negligence is insufficient.

• Indiana Tort Claims Act: Claims against government entities must comply with Indiana Code Chapter 34-13-3. Notice is generally due within 180 days for a political subdivision (§ 34-13-3-8) or 270 days for the State (§ 34-13-3-6); caps and a punitive prohibition appear in § 34-13-3-4.

• Prejudgment Interest: A court may award prejudgment interest only within Chapter 34-51-4's settlement-offer framework. Sections 34-51-4-5 and -6 state offer timing and judgment-comparison conditions; Section -7 makes an award discretionary; Section -8 governs accrual and the 48-month maximum.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• 2026 Indiana Code Title 34 index — official current section index
• Ind. Code § 34-11-2-4 — two years after accrual
• Ind. Code §§ 34-51-2-2, -6, and -8 — governmental exclusion, comparative bar, and allocation
• Ind. Code §§ 34-13-3-4, -6, and -8 — government caps, punitive prohibition, and notice
• Ind. Code §§ 34-51-3-2, -4, and -6 — punitive proof, cap, and allocation
• Ind. Code §§ 34-51-4-5 through -8 — prejudgment-interest procedure
• Burrell v. Meads — entrant status and invitee duty
• Schulz v. Kroger Co. — premises-condition knowledge
• Golba v. Kohl's Department Store, Inc. — self-service operations as a reasonable-care circumstance
• Henderson v. Reid Hospital & Healthcare Services — snow, notice, and reasonable opportunity
• Hammond v. Allegretti — natural snow and invitee duty
• Gribben v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. — first-party spoliation remedies
• Erie Insurance Co. v. Hickman — first-party insurance bad faith