A Slip in Aisle Nine: An Owner's Demand to Deny and a Ten-Day Policy-Limits Demand
You are a staff adjuster for a regional carrier. A customer slips on a puddle of washer fluid in the aisle of a hardware store insured under a businessowners policy with a $300,000 per-occurrence limit. The store manager says the fluid leaked from a display pallet, that no employee walked that aisle for 45 minutes, and that "the guy is a professional scammer - just deny it." The video shows the puddle at 9:12 a.m. and the fall at 9:34; no cone or sign appears at any point. The claimant's medical records show $41,000 in charges and a lumbar fusion, plus a 2019 back injury with the same diagnosis. His attorney demands the $300,000 limit with a 10-day deadline, threatens suit, and says he will report the company to the Bureau of Insurance. Your settlement authority is $60,000. When the demand letter arrives you recognize the firm's letterhead: your sister is a paralegal there.
1. Address the manager's instruction to deny and the conflict created by your sister's employment.
Read the worked answer
The denial instruction. The insured does not decide coverage or liability, and "just deny it" is not an investigation. Maine's unfair claim settlement practices provisions, 24-A M.R.S. §2164-C, reach refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation and failing to act promptly on claim communications. Denying here would be indefensible on the record as it stands: 22 minutes of an unattended puddle in a retail aisle with no warning cone is strong constructive-notice evidence, and the store's own video supplies it. What you can and should do is record the manager's statement verbatim, then test it - pull the spill-response log, the cleaning schedule, employee statements, and the pallet condition. Suspicions about the claimant do not substitute for that work.
The conflict. Your sister's employment at the claimant's firm is at minimum an appearance problem and possibly a genuine one. Do not discuss the claim with her, do not access anything through her, and do not let the relationship affect the evaluation in either direction. Disclose it in writing to your manager and compliance the same day, document the disclosure and the date, and expect the file to be reassigned to another adjuster. Continuing to handle a claim against a firm where a close relative works invites a later challenge to every judgment you make on it, including a legitimate one. If you are told to keep the file, get that instruction in writing and have a second adjuster review the evaluation.
2. Draft your response strategy to the 10-day policy-limits demand given $60,000 of authority.
Read the worked answer
The deadline is real, the exposure is real, and neither justifies an uninformed payment.
Respond in writing inside the 10 days. Acknowledge the demand, confirm the claim is under active investigation, and set out what you need: all medical records and bills, the prior 2019 records and imaging, wage-loss documentation, lien and Medicare/Medicaid status, and an extension of the demand deadline. Silence is what creates bad-faith optics; a documented, prompt reply does not.
Do not misstate anything. Never claim authority you lack, never misrepresent the policy limit, and never imply the claim is worth more or less than your evaluation supports. The limit is $300,000 and may be disclosed accurately; what you cannot do is suggest a $60,000 settlement is the carrier's final position before the medicals are reviewed.
Notify the insured. The demand exceeds limits, and the store is entitled to know that a suit is threatened, that it may retain its own counsel for exposure above the limit, and that it owes cooperation. A demand above limits does not by itself create excess exposure, but the file must show that the insured was informed.
Do not let the Bureau threat move the number. Reporting a carrier is a right; the threat is not a settlement lever. Evaluate on the merits and let the file demonstrate prompt, documented handling - that is the best defense to a complaint.
3. Lay out the liability and damages analysis you owe this file, and how you handle the "scammer" allegation.
Read the worked answer
Liability. Premises liability turns on notice. With a 22-minute puddle and no cone, the strongest theory is constructive notice through the failure to inspect a customer aisle; the store will argue the spill was spontaneous and recent. Get the maintenance logs, the aisle-assignment schedule, and every employee statement for the 9:00–9:35 window. Then evaluate comparative fault - did the claimant see the puddle, was the aisle lit, was there a clear path around it? Maine's modified comparative fault reduces recovery by the claimant's share.
Damages. $41,000 in charges plus a lumbar fusion supports a real special-damages figure; get the operative report, the surgeon's causation opinion, and the 2019 records. A prior identical diagnosis is a causation issue, not an automatic bar - if the fusion was necessitated by the fall, the prior condition affects the apportionment, not coverage. Reserve for future care and any loss of earning capacity before you evaluate the demand against the $300,000 limit.
The "scammer" allegation. Run an ISO claim index search, check for prior claims by the claimant, and compare the medical history across carriers. Refer to SIU per protocol if the index returns anything. Do not accuse the claimant, do not put unfounded suspicion into correspondence, and do not discuss the referral with the claimant or his attorney. If material misrepresentation later surfaces, state the basis in writing and support it with evidence. Document every contact, every decision, and the basis for every payment. Close with a signed release and resolved liens so the file does not reopen.