UM/UIM Demand Letter - Connecticut

UM/UIM (UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST) DEMAND LETTER

State of Connecticut

[LAW FIRM LETTERHEAD]

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION — NOT ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE
PROTECTED UNDER CONN. CODE EVID. § 4-8 AND FED. R. EVID. 408

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND VIA EMAIL TO: [________________________________]

Date: [__/__/____]

[INSURANCE COMPANY FULL LEGAL NAME]
Attn: UM/UIM Claims Department
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________], CT [________]

Attention: [________________________________], [TITLE]
Re: FORMAL UM/UIM POLICY LIMITS DEMAND — CONNECTICUT
Claimant/Insured: [________________________________]
Policy Number: [________________________________]
Claim Number: [________________________________]
Date of Loss: [__/__/____]
Location of Collision: [________________________________], Connecticut
UM/UIM Policy Limits: $[________________] per person / $[________________] per accident
Tortfeasor: [________________________________]
Tortfeasor's Carrier: [________________________________]
Tortfeasor's Liability Limits: $[________________]
Response Deadline: [__/__/____] at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time

Dear [________________________________]:

I. INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF DEMAND

This firm represents [________________________________] ("our client") in connection with a claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits under the automobile liability policy issued by [________________________________] (hereinafter "the Company" or "[________________]"), Policy No. [________________________________], arising from a motor vehicle collision on [__/__/____].

This letter constitutes a formal demand for payment of the full UM/UIM policy limits of $[________________]. Our client's total damages substantially exceed all available coverage. Connecticut law obligates [________________] — as the insurer of its own insured — to honor the UM/UIM coverage that your insured purchased and paid for in good faith.

II. CONNECTICUT UM/UIM STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

A. Mandatory Coverage Requirement

Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-336(a)(1)(A), every automobile liability insurance policy issued in Connecticut must provide uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage with limits for bodily injury or death not less than the minimum financial responsibility amounts specified in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-112(a) — currently $25,000 per person / $50,000 per accident (as amended by P.A. 17-114, effective January 1, 2018).

B. Equal-Limits Default Rule and Written Rejection Requirement

Under § 38a-336(a)(2), for policies issued or renewed on or after January 1, 1994, the insurer must provide UM/UIM coverage with limits equal to the bodily injury liability limits purchased, unless the named insured requests a lesser amount in writing using an informed consent form that:

• (A) explains UM/UIM insurance in language approved by the Insurance Commissioner;
• (B) lists all UM/UIM coverage options available from the insurer; and
• (C) discloses the premium cost for each coverage option.

If [________________] cannot produce a properly executed written rejection/reduction form, the applicable UM/UIM limits are equal to the bodily injury liability limits of the policy.

☐ Our client signed a valid written reduction form; the applicable UM/UIM limits are as stated above.
☐ No valid written reduction form exists; [________________] must apply UM/UIM limits equal to the bodily injury liability limits of $[________________].

C. Anti-Stacking Rule

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-336(d) prohibits the stacking of UM/UIM limits across multiple policies or multiple vehicles on a single policy. Regardless of the number of policies issued, vehicles insured, or premiums paid, only one policy's UM/UIM limits are available for any single accident. The primary vehicle's policy controls, with secondary and excess policies applying in the priority established by § 38a-336(d).

Exception — Underinsured Motorist Conversion Coverage: If our client purchased underinsured motorist conversion coverage under § 38a-336a, the anti-stacking limitation in § 38a-336(d) does not apply to that conversion coverage. See § 38a-336(b) (last sentence).

D. UIM Trigger and Payment Obligation

Pursuant to § 38a-336(b), [________________] is obligated to pay UIM benefits to its insured after the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability bonds or insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident have been exhausted by payment of judgments or settlements. The total recovery from all sources may not exceed the insured's UIM limits (except for conversion coverage under § 38a-336a).

An "underinsured motor vehicle" is defined in § 38a-336(e) as a motor vehicle for which the sum of all bodily injury liability limits applicable at the time of the accident is less than the applicable UM/UIM limits under the claimant's own policy.

E. Statute of Limitations

§ 38a-336(g)(1) prohibits an insurer from contractually limiting the time to bring suit or demand arbitration on the UM/UIM provisions of a policy to less than three years from the date of accident. For UIM claims specifically, the insured may toll any applicable limitation period by:

1. Notifying the insurer in writing of the UIM claim prior to expiration of the applicable limitation period; and
2. Commencing suit or demanding arbitration not more than 180 days from the date of exhaustion of the tortfeasor's policy limits.

The governing contract statute of limitations under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-576 is six (6) years.

III. POLICY COVERAGE ANALYSIS

A. Policy Details

B. Coverage Trigger Analysis

For Uninsured Motorist (UM) Claims:

The tortfeasor qualifies as an "uninsured motor vehicle" under Connecticut law because (select all applicable):

☐ The tortfeasor carried no liability insurance at the time of the collision
☐ The tortfeasor's insurer has denied coverage
☐ The tortfeasor's insurer is insolvent prior to payment of damages (§ 38a-336(a)(1)(A))
☐ The tortfeasor was a hit-and-run driver who cannot be identified
☐ The tortfeasor's liability limits are below the statutory minimums under § 14-112(a)

Supporting documentation establishing uninsured status is enclosed. Per § 38a-336c(b) (effective October 1, 2006), [________________] may not require our client to provide affidavits or written statements from the tortfeasor's owner or operator as a condition of eligibility for UM benefits.

For Underinsured Motorist (UIM) Claims:

The tortfeasor's vehicle qualifies as "underinsured" under § 38a-336(e) because:

• Tortfeasor's total applicable liability limits: $[________________]
• Our client's applicable UIM limits: $[________________]
• The tortfeasor's limits are less than our client's UIM limits
• Our client has exhausted (or will exhaust) the tortfeasor's policy limits by payment of judgment or settlement

Consent to Settle / Preservation of Rights: Pursuant to the policy and Connecticut law, we hereby request written consent to settle with the tortfeasor's carrier for policy limits of $[________________]. Please respond within [____] days. Failure to timely object may waive [________________]'s subrogation rights. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-336b (subrogation against UIM tortfeasor prohibited).

IV. THE COLLISION — LIABILITY AND FAULT

A. Facts of the Collision

On [__/__/____], at approximately [________] a.m./p.m., our client [________________________________] was [________________________________] at or near [________________________________] in [________________________________], Connecticut, when the following occurred:

[PROVIDE DETAILED NARRATIVE OF THE COLLISION — include road conditions, traffic controls, direction of travel, point of impact, and sequence of events]

B. Evidence of the Tortfeasor's Negligence

The tortfeasor, [________________________________], was negligent under Connecticut law in the following specific respects:

☐ Failure to maintain a proper lookout — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-218a (reasonable and prudent speed)
☐ Failure to yield the right-of-way — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-245 or § 14-246
☐ Following too closely — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-240
☐ Operating at an unreasonable speed for existing conditions — § 14-218a
☐ Improper lane change or failure to maintain lane — § 14-236
☐ Failure to obey a traffic control device — § 14-299 or § 14-301
☐ Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs — § 14-227a
☐ Distracted driving (cell phone/electronic device) — § 14-296aa
☐ [________________________________]

C. Supporting Evidence of Liability

Police Report: [________________________________] Police Department, Report No. [________________________________], dated [__/__/____]. The report [DESCRIBES FINDINGS / CITES THE TORTFEASOR / NOTES ANY CITATIONS ISSUED].

Witness Statements: [____] independent witness(es) observed the collision:
- [________________________________], [________________________________] (contact: [________________________________])
- [________________________________], [________________________________] (contact: [________________________________])

Physical Evidence: [DESCRIBE — point of impact, vehicle damage patterns, skid marks, debris field, traffic camera footage, etc.]

Expert Analysis: [________________________________], Accident Reconstructionist, has concluded: [________________________________]. Report enclosed.

D. Comparative Fault Analysis Under Connecticut Law

Connecticut applies modified comparative negligence under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572h. A plaintiff is barred from recovery only if their negligence is greater than 51% of the total negligence. Our client bears no comparative fault for this collision for the following reasons:

[EXPLAIN WHY CLIENT IS BLAMELESS OR HAS DE MINIMIS FAULT]

Any attempt by [________________] to attribute comparative fault to our client to reduce its UM/UIM payment obligation must be supported by concrete evidence, not speculation, and cannot reduce recovery unless our client's fault exceeds 51%.

V. OUR CLIENT'S INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

A. Injury Summary

As a direct and proximate result of the tortfeasor's negligence on [__/__/____], our client sustained the following injuries:

Primary Injuries:
- [________________________________]
- [________________________________]
- [________________________________]

Secondary/Consequential Injuries:
- [________________________________]
- [________________________________]

B. Treatment Chronology

C. Current Condition and Prognosis

[DESCRIBE CURRENT SYMPTOMS, FUNCTIONAL LIMITATIONS, ONGOING TREATMENT NEEDS, AND OVERALL PROGNOSIS]

D. Permanent Impairment (AMA Guidelines)

Impairment ratings are provided by [________________________________], M.D., Board-Certified in [________________________________], report dated [__/__/____]. Enclosed herewith.

VI. DAMAGES

A. Past Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses (Present Value)

Life care plan prepared by [________________________________] enclosed.

C. Lost Earnings and Earning Capacity

Vocational/economic analysis by [________________________________] enclosed.

D. Non-Economic Damages — Pain, Suffering, and Loss of Life's Enjoyment

Connecticut does not impose a statutory cap on non-economic damages in personal injury cases. Our client is entitled to full compensation for:

• Physical pain and suffering — past and future
• Emotional distress and mental anguish
• Loss of enjoyment of life and recreational activities
• Loss of consortium (if applicable)
• Permanent scarring and disfigurement (if applicable)

[DESCRIBE SPECIFIC IMPACT ON DAILY LIFE, ACTIVITIES, RELATIONSHIPS, AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING]

Non-economic damages are conservatively valued at $[________________] based on the nature and severity of the injuries, the duration and extent of treatment, and the lasting functional impairment.

E. Damages Summary

VII. UIM BENEFITS CALCULATION

A. Net UIM Benefits Owed

Per § 38a-336(b), the total recovery from all sources (tortfeasor's limits plus UIM benefits) shall not exceed the UIM policy limits — unless our client purchased conversion coverage under § 38a-336a, in which case the full conversion coverage limits are available in addition to the tortfeasor's limits.

B. Formal Policy Limits Demand

We hereby demand payment of the full UM/UIM policy limits of $[________________].

Our client's total damages of $[________________] overwhelmingly exceed the combined coverage available. This is a clear policy limits case. [________________] has an affirmative obligation to protect its own insured.

VIII. BAD FAITH WARNING — CONNECTICUT LAW

A. The Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Every Connecticut insurance contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Verrastro v. Middlesex Ins. Co., 207 Conn. 179, 190, 540 A.2d 693 (1988); L.F. Pace & Sons, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 9 Conn. App. 30, 46, 514 A.2d 766 (1986). Connecticut also recognizes an independent tort arising from an insurer's violation of its common law duty of good faith. Buckman v. People Express, Inc., 205 Conn. 166, 530 A.2d 596 (1987).

"Bad faith in general implies both actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties, but by some interested or sinister motive…. Bad faith means more than mere negligence; it involves a dishonest purpose." De La Concha of Hartford, Inc. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 269 Conn. 424, 433, 849 A.2d 382 (2004).

B. CUIPA Violations — General Business Practice

Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-816(6), the following constitute unfair claims settlement practices when committed with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice:

☐ Misrepresenting pertinent facts or policy provisions relating to coverages at issue — § 38a-816(6)(A)
☐ Failing to acknowledge and act with reasonable promptness upon communications regarding claims — § 38a-816(6)(B)
☐ Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims — § 38a-816(6)(C)
☐ Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation — § 38a-816(6)(D)
☐ Failing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time after proof of loss — § 38a-816(6)(E)
☐ Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlements when liability has become reasonably clear — § 38a-816(6)(F)
☐ Compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due by offering substantially less than amounts ultimately recovered — § 38a-816(6)(G)

See Mead v. Burns, 199 Conn. 651, 509 A.2d 11 (1986) (CUIPA requires proof of general business practice; Lees v. Middlesex Ins. Co., 229 Conn. 842 (1994) (handling of a single claim, without more, is insufficient for CUIPA).

C. CUTPA Private Right of Action

Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b, any person who suffers an ascertainable loss as a result of an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce may bring a CUTPA action. A private cause of action under CUTPA may be predicated on a violation of CUIPA. Mead v. Burns, 199 Conn. 651, 662–63 (1986); DeRossi v. Nat'l Loss Mgmt., 328 F. Supp. 2d 283 (D. Conn. 2004). Conduct that violates CUIPA necessarily violates CUTPA.

CUTPA remedies available to our client include:
- Actual damages (including compensatory and consequential damages)
- Punitive damages (upon showing reckless indifference or intentional and wanton violation) — Berry v. Loiseau, 223 Conn. 786, 811 (1992)
- Attorney's fees and costs — § 42-110g(d)
- Injunctive or other equitable relief

Note on Punitive Damages: Common law punitive damages in Connecticut are limited to reasonable litigation costs including attorney's fees and nontaxable costs. Bodner v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 222 Conn. 480, 492 (1992). CUTPA statutory punitive damages under § 42-110g are capped at double the actual damages for certain violations pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-240b.

D. CUTPA Statute of Limitations

CUTPA claims must be brought within three (3) years from the date of the unfair or deceptive act or practice. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(f).

Any unreasonable delay, lowball offer, or failure to fairly evaluate our client's claim will form the basis of a CUIPA/CUTPA bad faith action.

IX. ARBITRATION PROVISIONS

A. Policy Arbitration Clause

The policy [☐ contains / ☐ does not contain] a binding arbitration provision for UM/UIM disputes.

[IF ARBITRATION APPLIES: The policy provides that disputes shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with [________________________________]. We [☐ are / ☐ are not] invoking arbitration at this time.]

B. Three-Year Arbitration Deadline

Pursuant to § 38a-336(g)(1), any policy provision limiting the time to demand arbitration to less than three years from the date of accident is void and unenforceable. The accident date was [__/__/____], and the three-year outer deadline is [__/__/____].

For UIM claims, the 180-day period to commence suit or arbitration runs from the date of exhaustion of the tortfeasor's limits. Exhaustion is expected on or about [__/__/____].

X. DEMANDS AND RESPONSE DEADLINE

A. Monetary Demand

We hereby demand payment of the full UM/UIM policy limits of $[________________] within [____] days of this letter, on or before [__/__/____] at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

B. Consent to Settle

We also demand written consent from [________________] to settle with the tortfeasor's liability carrier for the tortfeasor's policy limits of $[________________]. Please provide written consent or written objection within [____] days.

C. Consequences of Non-Response

If [________________] fails to tender policy limits or provide a reasonable counter-offer by the deadline stated herein:

1. Suit will be filed in the Connecticut Superior Court seeking:
   - Full UM/UIM policy limits
   - Consequential damages flowing from [________________]'s breach
   - Bad faith damages under Buckman v. People Express
   - CUIPA/CUTPA violations with attorney's fees and punitive damages under § 42-110g

2. Arbitration will be demanded (if required under the policy)

3. A complaint will be filed with the Connecticut Insurance Department, P.O. Box 816, Hartford, CT 06142-0816, Telephone: (860) 297-3800, Online: www.ct.gov/cid

XI. DOCUMENT PRESERVATION DEMAND

This letter constitutes formal notice to [________________________________] to immediately preserve all documents, electronically stored information (ESI), and tangible materials relating to this claim, including without limitation:

• The complete claim file in all versions (including drafts and reserve history)
• All internal communications and adjuster diaries regarding this claim
• All communications with the insured, claimant, or counsel
• All photographs, video recordings, and inspection reports
• All expert reports, estimates, and valuations
• Claim handling guidelines, manuals, and training materials applicable to UM/UIM claims
• Reserve information and all reserve change documentation with supervisory approvals
• Any SIU referral materials or fraud investigation records
• Quality assurance, audit, or peer review reports touching this claim

Failure to preserve such materials may result in sanctions, adverse inference instructions, and other remedies under Connecticut law.

XII. ENCLOSURES AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED

☐ Police report — [________________________________] Police Dept., Report No. [________________________________]
☐ Medical records and bills (itemized list attached)
☐ Impairment rating report — [________________________________], M.D., dated [__/__/____]
☐ Life care plan — [________________________________], dated [__/__/____]
☐ Vocational / economic expert report — [________________________________], dated [__/__/____]
☐ Photographs of accident scene and vehicles
☐ Accident reconstruction report — [________________________________], dated [__/__/____]
☐ Proof of tortfeasor's uninsured / underinsured status
☐ Tortfeasor's policy declarations page
☐ Written consent request to settle with tortfeasor's carrier
☐ [________________________________]

XIII. CONCLUSION

Our client purchased UM/UIM insurance precisely for a situation like this — a collision caused by an uninsured or underinsured driver that resulted in catastrophic injuries and damages far exceeding the at-fault party's coverage. Connecticut law mandates this coverage; [________________] collected premiums for it. The time to honor that obligation is now.

We strongly urge [________________] to evaluate this claim in good faith and tender the demanded policy limits. We remain available to discuss this matter at your convenience prior to the response deadline.

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: ___________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
Juris No. [____________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________], CT [________]
Telephone: ([____]) [____]-[________]
Facsimile: ([____]) [____]-[________]
Email: [________________________________]

Counsel for [________________________________]

CC:
- [________________________________] (Client)
- [TORTFEASOR'S CARRIER] (re: consent to settle)
- File

CONNECTICUT UM/UIM LAW — QUICK REFERENCE

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-336: https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-38a/chapter-700/section-38a-336-formerly-sec-38-175c/
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-336a (Conversion Coverage): https://codes.findlaw.com/ct/title-38a-insurance/ct-gen-st-sect-38a-336a/
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-336c (Claims Procedure): https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_700.htm
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-112(a) (Minimum Limits — $25k/$50k/$25k): https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-14/chapter-246/section-14-112/
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-816(6) (CUIPA — Unfair Practices): https://www.cga.ct.gov/2021/pub/chap_704.htm
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b et seq. (CUTPA): https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_735a.htm
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572h (Comparative Negligence): https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-52/chapter-925/section-52-572h/
• Mead v. Burns, 199 Conn. 651, 509 A.2d 11 (1986)
• Lees v. Middlesex Ins. Co., 229 Conn. 842, 643 A.2d 1282 (1994)
• Buckman v. People Express, Inc., 205 Conn. 166, 530 A.2d 596 (1987)
• Verrastro v. Middlesex Ins. Co., 207 Conn. 179, 540 A.2d 693 (1988)
• Connecticut Insurance Department: https://www.ct.gov/cid
• ALFA International — Connecticut Insurance Law Compendium: https://www.alfainternational.com/compendium/insurance-law/connecticut/