The Twenty-One-Day Policy Limits Demand: Pay, Extend, or Defend?
Marisol Ortega, 34, a delivery driver, was injured when retired teacher Harold Pike drove into the intersection and struck her driver's side. Pike told police he 'never saw her' in heavy sun glare. Ortega claims a red-light violation by Pike; two independent witnesses agree, though one witness behind Pike insists his light was green. Ortega's medical bills are $148,000, with a recommended lumbar fusion and projected $62,000 in lost wages. Her phone records show a call ending 21 seconds before impact, and her prescription medication was in her system at therapeutic levels. The jurisdiction applies modified comparative fault with a 51% bar. Defense counsel estimates 30-45% claimant fault and a verdict range of $250,000-$600,000. Policy limits are $250,000 per person. Reserves stand at $95,000. Ortega's counsel has sent a $250,000 policy-limits demand, open for 21 days, requiring a coverage affidavit and a response in writing. Mediation is set in 45 days.
1. Evaluate the time-limit demand and recommend a response.
Read the worked answer
A time-limit demand is not self-executing. To create excess exposure it must be clear, unequivocal, give a reasonable opportunity to evaluate, and match what a reasonable insurer could accept given the known facts. Twenty-one days is short but not automatically unreasonable; the stronger objection here is liability: disputed light color, claimant phone use, and a defense estimate of up to 45% fault mean the case is not a clear-limits file. Still, ignoring the demand is the one indefensible option. Respond in writing within the period, state that the carrier is investigating and does not yet have a reasonable basis to evaluate, request a 30-day extension tied to the mediation date, provide the requested coverage affidavit, and expressly reserve all defenses. Document each step, because the file will later be judged on whether a reasonable insurer would have accepted - not on whether the demand's deadline was met.
2. Calculate an appropriate reserve and explain the reasoning.
Read the worked answer
Move off $95,000. Build an expected-value estimate: probability of a plaintiff verdict roughly 80% given two independent witnesses and Pike's admission; average claimant fault near 35% under the modified comparative rule (no bar, since it is well under 51%). Midpoint verdict value of the $250,000-$600,000 range is about $425,000; reduced by 35% fault leaves roughly $276,000 - already above the $250,000 limit. Expected value is therefore 0.80 x $276,000, about $221,000, plus allocated defense costs of $35,000-$50,000 through trial. Because the indicated net verdict exceeds the limit, the exposure is not capped at $250,000: a verdict above limits with low assessed fault opens excess and bad-faith exposure. Reserve the file at the $250,000 limit plus a separate defense and expense budget, flag it for home-office review, and document the calculation in the file.
3. What settlement authority should the adjuster request before mediation, and on what conditions?
Read the worked answer
Request authority to $250,000, but structure it. First, obtain authority contingent on a full release of Pike and Ortega's carrier, dismissal of all claims, and a Medicare/Medicaid lien resolution or hold-harmless. Second, build a negotiating plan that opens near $150,000 with the fault and comparative arguments, holding limits for the mediation's final session; paying limits on day one forfeits the leverage from Ortega's own phone use and the light-color conflict. Third, request a 'consent to excess' clause or an agreement that any verdict above limits will not be pursued against Pike personally, reducing excess exposure. Fourth, evaluate whether the 51% bar creates a credible trial defense: if Ortega is found 50% at fault, recovery drops sharply, so a mid-range settlement in the $180,000-$210,000 zone may be the best risk-adjusted outcome.