DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF MONTANA

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

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] in [City], [County] County, Montana. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement.

I. MONTANA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under Montana Code Annotated Section 27-2-204, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is three (3) years from the date of injury. This claim arises from an incident that occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].

B. Montana Comparative Negligence

Montana follows modified comparative negligence under Mont. Code Ann. Section 27-1-702. A plaintiff's damages are reduced by their percentage of fault. However, a plaintiff whose negligence is equal to or greater than the combined negligence of all defendants is barred from recovery (i.e., plaintiff must be less than 50% at fault).

Our client was exercising all reasonable care and bears no fault for this incident.

C. Montana Premises Liability Standards

Unified Duty of Reasonable Care:
Montana has adopted a unified duty of reasonable care applicable to all lawful entrants on property, abolishing the traditional invitee/licensee/trespasser distinctions. Limberhand v. Big Ditch Co., 218 Mont. 132, 706 P.2d 491 (1985).

Under Montana law, a possessor of land owes a duty of reasonable care to all persons on the land, and may be subject to liability for physical harm caused by:
1. A condition on the land, if the condition is dangerous
2. The possessor knew or should have known of the condition
3. The possessor failed to exercise reasonable care to protect against the danger

Fandrich v. Stacy, 346 Mont. 261, 194 P.3d 1242 (2008).

D. Montana "Open and Obvious" Doctrine

Montana applies the open and obvious doctrine as a factor in the comparative negligence analysis rather than as a complete bar to recovery. The openness and obviousness of a danger is relevant to:
1. Whether the defendant breached a duty
2. Whether the plaintiff was comparatively negligent

Somont Oil Co. v. A & G Drilling, Inc., 309 Mont. 501, 49 P.3d 598 (2002).

Here, the hazardous condition was NOT open and obvious because: [Explain].

E. Montana Snow and Ice Liability

General Duty of Reasonable Care:
Montana property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to address snow and ice hazards. Given Montana's climate, courts evaluate:
- The reasonableness of the property owner's response to winter conditions
- Time elapsed since precipitation ended
- Efforts undertaken to clear or treat ice and snow
- Whether the condition was natural or created/aggravated by the owner

No Blanket Natural Accumulation Rule:
Montana has not adopted a strict natural accumulation rule that would immunize property owners from all snow/ice liability. The analysis focuses on reasonableness under the circumstances.

[If snow/ice case:] Your insured failed to exercise reasonable care in addressing the snow and ice accumulation that caused our client's fall.

F. Montana Damage Caps

Under Montana Code Annotated Section 25-9-411, non-economic damages are generally capped at $250,000.

Exceptions to the cap: The cap does not apply if:
1. The defendant acted with fraud, actual malice, or oppression
2. The injury resulted in permanent physical impairment
3. The injury resulted in disfigurement

[If applicable:] The cap does not apply to our client's claim because [describe exception].

G. Notice Requirements for Government Claims

Montana Tort Claims Act (Mont. Code Ann. Section 2-9-101 et seq.):
Claims against Montana state government require presentment before filing suit. The claim must be filed with the Department of Administration within the statute of limitations period.

[If applicable:] Proper notice was provided on [Date].

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to this incident, including:

• All surveillance video footage from the date of incident
• Surveillance footage from 48 hours before and after the incident
• Incident/accident reports
• Maintenance logs and repair records
• Inspection records and checklists
• Cleaning schedules and logs
• Weather records from the date of incident
• Snow removal logs and contracts
• Prior complaints and prior incidents
• Photographs of the incident location

Montana courts may impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence, including adverse inference instructions.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Premises

The incident occurred at [Property Address], which is [describe property type] in [City], [County] County, Montana. At all relevant times, [Property Owner Name] owned, operated, and/or controlled the subject premises.

B. The Hazardous Condition

On the date of the incident, a dangerous condition existed on the premises: [Describe hazard in detail]

[CUSTOMIZE BASED ON TYPE OF HAZARD:]

Wet/Slippery Floor: A liquid substance was present on the floor creating a slippery surface. There were no warning signs or barriers in place.

Ice/Snow: Ice and/or snow created a hazardous condition at [location]. Your insured failed to exercise reasonable care to address this hazard.

Uneven Surface/Tripping Hazard: A [defect] created a tripping hazard.

C. The Incident

On [Date of Incident], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe activity] when [he/she] [describe the fall]:

[Detailed narrative]

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Duty of Care

Under Montana's unified duty of care established in Limberhand v. Big Ditch Co., 218 Mont. 132, 706 P.2d 491 (1985), your insured owed our client a duty of reasonable care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.

B. Breach of Duty

Your insured breached this duty by:

1. Failure to Maintain Safe Premises:
   [Describe specific failures]

2. Actual or Constructive Knowledge:
   Your insured [created the hazardous condition / had actual knowledge of the condition / had constructive knowledge because the condition existed for a sufficient period that it should have been discovered through reasonable care].

C. The Condition Was Not Open and Obvious

Under Montana law, the open and obvious nature of a condition is a factor in the comparative negligence analysis, not an absolute bar. Here:
- The hazard was not apparent to a reasonable person because [explain]
- Even if partially observable, our client exercised reasonable care

D. Causation

The dangerous condition was the direct and proximate cause of our client's fall and injuries.

E. Comparative Negligence Defense Rejected

Our client was free from fault:
- [Evidence of due care by client]
- Our client had no reason to anticipate the hazard

V. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

A. Immediate Injuries

Primary Diagnoses:
- [Injury 1]
- [Injury 2]
- [Injury 3]

B. Medical Treatment

Emergency Treatment:
[Details]

Subsequent Treatment:
[Details]

C. Current Status and Prognosis

[Current condition and prognosis]

VI. DAMAGES

A. Past Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

D. Non-Economic Damages

Note: Montana caps non-economic damages at $250,000 unless an exception applies.

Our client has experienced:
- Physical pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Loss of enjoyment of life
- [If applicable: Permanent physical impairment / Disfigurement - cap exception]

[If cap exception applies:] Due to [permanent physical impairment / disfigurement / defendant's fraud, malice, or oppression], the $250,000 cap does not apply.

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based upon the liability of your insured, the severity of our client's injuries, and the damages incurred, we hereby demand:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

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

VIII. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Complete medical records and bills
• Photographs of the incident location
• Photographs of injuries
• Incident report (if obtained)
• Employment records and wage verification
• Weather records (if applicable)

IX. CONCLUSION

The evidence establishes clear liability under Montana's unified duty of care standard. Your insured failed to maintain safe premises and our client was injured as a direct result. We urge prompt resolution.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
State Bar of Montana No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

MONTANA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Unified Duty of Care: Montana abolished the invitee/licensee/trespasser distinctions in Limberhand v. Big Ditch Co. (1985).

• Modified Comparative Negligence: Plaintiff must be less than 50% at fault to recover.

• Non-Economic Damage Cap: $250,000 cap with exceptions for permanent impairment, disfigurement, and egregious conduct.

• Joint and Several Liability: Abolished for most cases; each defendant liable only for their percentage of fault.

• Punitive Damages: Available with clear and convincing evidence of actual fraud or actual malice.

• Snow/Ice: Reasonable care standard applies; no blanket natural accumulation immunity.

• Venue: County where defendant resides or where cause of action arose. Mont. Code Ann. Section 25-2-126.