Example Demand Letter

April 18, 2020

Cheryle Duffy

1234 Lincoln Dr

Grand Rapids, MI 1234

Re: Motion for Summary Disposition Ruling

Dear Ms. Duffy:

This firm was retained by you, Ms. Duffy, regarding the lawsuit you have brought against Mr. John Kinnamon for premises liability and negligence. As you know, we have been waiting for the response regarding the appeal on the Motion for Summary Disposition that was filed by the defendant. Unfortunately, the court ruled to grant Mr. Kinnamon’s Motion for Summary Judgement.

As you know, the base of this lawsuit was the complaint brought against the defendant for premises liability and negligence. Our aim was to push that the defendant knew or should have known that the pea gravel surrounding the defendant’s fire pit was unstable and he failed to warn or protect you from the dangerous conditions. When the defendant continued to use the fire pit in these unstable conditions constitutes as negligence. Since the start of this process, as you are aware, the defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgement. In that motion the defendant argued that you were a licensee, and that you were also aware of the pea gravel surrounding the fire pit. His argument that you were a licensee also means that he did not owe you the duty of warning or protecting you from the danger. In trial court, the defendants Motion for Summary Disposition was denied to which he then appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the trial court’s decision and the case and concluded that the trial court’s decision was to be reversed and remanded, granting the defendant Motion for Summary Judgement.

In the opinion given by the Court of Appeals, they give several reasons as to how their decision was reached. The defendant argued that you were a licensee, which is true since you were a social guest at the defendant’s home. Since that is true it means that he did not have a responsibility to warn you of the possible harm that could come from the dangerous conditions of the fire pit. Another reason was that the court argued the pea gravel was open and obvious and that you were aware of the dangers that the fire pit possessed. It is stated that you spread it, patted it down, and walked on it prior to the accident. When you stepped on it prior to the accident, the court argued that because it moves under the feet you would have seen the pea gravel and then been aware that it was not level. The final argument that was made by the Court was, you failed to establish that the defendant knew or had reason to know about any hidden dangers that were associated with the pea gravel.

This is not the end, there are still ways to move forward with this lawsuit. You can bring this court up to Michigan’s Supreme Court to review the case which could help with getting a third court’s opinion since the first two disagreed. Another option is to propose for settlement between you and the defendant. Settling will only benefit you if you want this lawsuit to be over with or you think there is a slim chance you will win if this is brought to court again. The last option is waiting for the trial courts decision. Since this court sent the case back down to be reviewed there is a chance the trial court will agree with the decision of the trial court before it and deny the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Whatever you decide to go with we will respect your decision.

Sincerely,

Hypatia Swanson