# Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Notice Requirements

Read this file when Step 1 of `../SKILL.md` identifies a statutory pre-suit regime, or whenever the letter's recipient is in a jurisdiction listed below. Statutory pre-suit notice failures can **waive claims entirely** — this is the single highest-stakes failure mode for a demand letter.

Every citation here is a drafting reference, not a legal conclusion. Every pinpoint cite must be verified via `legal-research` before the letter is sent. Marked `[VERIFY]` throughout as a reminder.

## Fast lookup

| Claim / Relationship | First-stop row |
|---|---|
| Consumer UDAP, Massachusetts | MA Ch. 93A § 9 |
| Consumer UDAP / general consumer claim, Texas | TX DTPA § 17.505 |
| Consumer class action, California (deceptive advertising / warranty) | CA CLRA § 1782 |
| Construction defect, homeowner | CA SB 800 / TX Ch. 27 / FL Ch. 558 |
| Medical malpractice, Florida | Fla. Stat. Ch. 766 |
| Bad-faith insurance, Texas (policy-limits) | TX Stowers (common law) |
| Consumer debt collection (third-party) | FDCPA § 1692g / § 1692e(11) |
| Defamation (pre-suit retraction) | State retraction statutes (CA / TX / GA / FL and others) |
| Warranty claim (federal + 50-state parallels) | MMWA (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.) |

---

## Massachusetts — Ch. 93A § 9 (consumer unfair / deceptive practices) `[VERIFY]`

- **Statute.** Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 9(3).
- **Trigger.** Any consumer claiming unfair or deceptive trade practices under § 2 against a person engaged in trade or commerce.
- **Notice period.** Written demand at least **30 days** before filing suit.
- **Required contents.**
  - Identification of the claimant.
  - A reasonable description of the unfair or deceptive act or practice.
  - A statement of the injuries suffered.
- **Service method.** Mail to the recipient. No statutory specification of certified mail, but certified with return receipt is universal practice to prove delivery.
- **Response mechanism (leverage hook).** The recipient has 30 days to tender a written offer of settlement. If the recipient tenders a "reasonable offer" in good faith and the claimant rejects it, claimant's recovery is limited to the offered amount and multiplier/fee entitlements may be forfeited. This cuts both ways — a weak demand invites a token counter-offer that caps recovery.
- **Consequence of defect.** Failure to serve a compliant § 9(3) demand is a bar to the claim. Many Massachusetts plaintiffs lose the claim entirely at the motion-to-dismiss stage for defective demand letters.
- **Exemplars.** `assets/examples/ma-93a-official-template.pdf`, `assets/examples/ma-93a-auto-body-repair.pdf`.
- **Verification.** `legal-research`: current case law on "reasonable offer," "knowing or willful," and the § 9(3) forfeiture mechanism. `citation-bluebook` for any case cites.

## Texas — DTPA § 17.505 (consumer unfair practices) `[VERIFY]`

- **Statute.** Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.505.
- **Trigger.** Any consumer claiming violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act under § 17.46 et seq.
- **Notice period.** Written demand at least **60 days** before filing suit (with narrow exceptions for counterclaims and imminent SOL).
- **Required contents.**
  - Identification of the complaint in "reasonable detail."
  - The economic damages and mental anguish claimed.
  - The attorney's fees reasonably incurred, if any.
- **Service method.** Any written method; certified mail is standard.
- **Response mechanism.** Recipient has 60 days to tender a written settlement offer. A tender of an amount later found by the court to be "substantially the same as, or more than, the damages found by the trier of fact" caps damages at the tendered amount and bars attorney's fees incurred after the offer was made.
- **Consequence of defect.** Abatement of the suit until compliance, in some cases dismissal. The DTPA has specific carve-outs for economic damages that may survive a defective notice — narrow, `[VERIFY]`.
- **Exemplar.** No clean exemplar in corpus (MANIFEST coverage gap). Draft from `TEMPLATE.md` statutory-notice branch + this row.
- **Verification.** `legal-research` for "substantially the same" case law and current treble-damages "knowing / intentional" distinction.

## Texas — Stowers doctrine (common-law bad-faith policy-limits demand) `[VERIFY]`

- **Doctrine.** Common-law, from *G.A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. Am. Indem. Co.*, 15 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1929, holding approved). Not a statute.
- **Trigger.** An insured is exposed to liability exceeding policy limits; the claimant has given the insurer the opportunity to settle within limits.
- **Notice period.** None statutorily required, but the demand must give the insurer a **reasonable time** to investigate, evaluate, and accept. Practice: 30 days is standard; 10–14 days is the floor and invites bad-faith arguments of its own.
- **Required contents.**
  - A clear offer to settle within policy limits.
  - Release of the insured from all liability for the incident.
  - Sufficient factual and medical documentation to allow the insurer a reasonable evaluation.
  - Specific deadline.
- **Service method.** To the insurer's claims representative (and, best practice, to the insured directly or through their counsel).
- **Consequence to the insurer of refusal.** If the insurer rejects a proper Stowers demand, and a judgment later exceeds limits, the insurer can be liable to the insured for the full excess. This is the extracontractual-damages leverage that makes these demands powerful.
- **Exemplars.** `assets/examples/pi-ga-witherite-liability-demand.pdf` (Georgia equivalent; similar policy-limits framework), `assets/examples/pi-ga-auto-allen-v-liberty-mutual-demand.pdf`.
- **Verification.** `legal-research` on current Texas Stowers evolution (cases refine what counts as a "proper" demand). `citation-bluebook` for good-law status.

## California — CLRA § 1782(a) (consumers' Legal Remedies Act) `[VERIFY]`

- **Statute.** Cal. Civ. Code § 1782(a).
- **Trigger.** Before filing an action for damages under the CLRA (§ 1780(a)(1)–(2)).
- **Notice period.** **30 days** written notice before filing the damages claim. Injunctive relief may be sought without notice; damages may be added by amendment after the 30 days.
- **Required contents.**
  - Notification of the particular alleged violations.
  - Demand that the recipient correct, repair, replace, or otherwise rectify.
- **Service method.** Certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the recipient's principal place of business.
- **Response mechanism.** If the recipient makes "an appropriate correction, repair, replacement, or other remedy" within 30 days (or a reasonable time if an offer is made in good faith during the 30 days), no action for damages lies.
- **Consequence of defect.** Dismissal of the damages claim (injunctive claim can still proceed in some cases). Chronic failure point in consumer class actions.
- **Exemplar.** `assets/examples/clra-ca-fca-jeep-wrangler-lieff-cabraser-demand.pdf`.
- **Verification.** `legal-research` for current case law on what constitutes an "appropriate" cure.

## California / Texas / Florida — Construction defect pre-suit regimes `[VERIFY]`

- **California — SB 800 / Right to Repair Act.** Cal. Civ. Code §§ 895–945.5. Notice of Claim to the builder; builder has right to inspect and elect repair; strict timelines; failure bars homeowner's claim for construction defects covered by the Act.
- **Texas — RCLA.** Tex. Prop. Code Ch. 27 (Residential Construction Liability Act). 60-day notice before filing, with specific content requirements; contractor's right to offer settlement or inspect.
- **Florida — Ch. 558.** Fla. Stat. Ch. 558. 60-day notice before filing (45 days for associations); contractor's right to inspect and offer to repair or settle.
- **Exemplar.** No clean exemplar in corpus (MANIFEST coverage gap). Draft from `TEMPLATE.md` statutory-notice branch + careful reading of the governing statute for each.
- **Verification.** `legal-research` for the specific state's current requirements, inspection rights, and consequence of defect. These regimes change frequently.

## Florida — Medical malpractice Ch. 766 `[VERIFY]`

- **Statute.** Fla. Stat. Ch. 766 (Presuit Investigation).
- **Trigger.** Any action for medical negligence against a health-care provider.
- **Notice period.** **90-day** presuit investigation period after Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation is served. Statute of limitations tolled during this period.
- **Required contents.**
  - Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation.
  - Verified written medical-expert opinion corroborating a reasonable ground for belief that medical negligence occurred.
  - Supporting documentation.
- **Service method.** Certified mail, return receipt requested, to each prospective defendant.
- **Response mechanism.** Defendant/insurer may investigate, reject the claim, offer admission of liability with arbitration on damages, or offer settlement.
- **Consequence of defect.** Dismissal; claim may be barred if statute of limitations has run.
- **Exemplar.** No clean exemplar in corpus (MANIFEST coverage gap).
- **Verification.** `legal-research` for current Ch. 766 requirements and the specific form of expert affidavit required.

## Federal — FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) `[VERIFY]`

- **Statute.** 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. Governs **third-party debt collectors**, not creditors collecting their own debts in their own name (narrow exceptions).
- **Trigger test.**
  - Sender: "debt collector" as defined in § 1692a(6). Attorneys regularly collecting consumer debts qualify.
  - Subject: "debt" as defined in § 1692a(5) — a consumer obligation for personal, family, or household purposes.
- **Initial-communication disclosure (§ 1692g validation notice).** Within 5 days of the initial communication with the consumer (or in the initial communication if written), the debt collector must provide:
  1. The amount of the debt.
  2. The name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed.
  3. A statement that unless the consumer, within 30 days after receipt, disputes the validity of the debt, the debt will be assumed valid.
  4. A statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within 30 days that the debt is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification and mail a copy to the consumer.
  5. A statement that, upon the consumer's written request within 30 days, the debt collector will provide the name and address of the original creditor if different from the current creditor.
- **Mini-Miranda disclosure (§ 1692e(11)).** See `ETHICS-AND-PRIVILEGE.md` for the required verbatim text and the initial-vs-subsequent distinction.
- **Service method.** Any method, but certified mail is standard; restrictions on communication with represented consumers (§ 1692c) apply.
- **Consequence of defect.** Statutory damages up to $1,000 per action, actual damages, attorney's fees. The consumer has a private right of action against the collector.
- **Exemplar.** No clean exemplar in corpus (MANIFEST coverage gap).
- **Verification.** `legal-research`; FDCPA case law evolves. **Also check any state-law analog** — many states (CA Rosenthal Act, NY GBL § 600, etc.) have parallel regimes with their own disclosures.

## Federal — Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) `[VERIFY]`

- **Statute.** 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. Applies to consumer-product written warranties.
- **Pre-suit notice.** Under § 2310(e), no action for breach of written or implied warranty may be brought unless the warrantor has been "afforded a reasonable opportunity to cure." A demand letter is the standard mechanism.
- **Class actions.** Additional § 2310(d)(3) requirements: 100-plaintiff minimum, $50,000 in controversy aggregate, named-plaintiff $25,000 minimum — these go to federal jurisdiction, not to the demand itself.
- **Service method.** No statutory method; certified mail is standard.
- **Consequence of defect.** Dismissal of the warranty claim; state-law warranty claims may survive.
- **Exemplar.** `assets/examples/multistate-mmwa-fca-slack-davis-sanger-demand.pdf`.
- **Verification.** `legal-research` for what counts as a "reasonable opportunity to cure" in the governing circuit.

## Defamation — state retraction statutes `[VERIFY]`

Many states require a pre-suit retraction demand as a prerequisite to claiming presumed or punitive damages in libel actions against media defendants. The specific mechanics are state-specific.

- **Common features.** Written demand; identification of the allegedly defamatory statement; opportunity for the defendant to publish a retraction within a specified period (often 10–30 days); consequence of defect usually limits — not bars — damages.
- **Jurisdictions with notable statutes.** California (Cal. Civ. Code § 48a), Texas (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 73), Georgia (O.C.G.A. § 51-5-11), Florida (Fla. Stat. § 770.02).
- **Exemplar.** `assets/examples/defamation-retraction-minc.pdf` (+ OCR companions `.ocr.md` and `.ocr.json`).
- **Verification.** `legal-research` for the specific state's statute AND current case-law interpretation. Retraction statutes are constitutional minefields — some have been partially invalidated.

## Other jurisdictions and claims not listed here

This table is not exhaustive. When the letter's jurisdiction or claim type does not appear above, **invoke `legal-research`** before drafting, with a query like:

> "Pre-suit notice requirements for a {{CLAIM TYPE}} under {{STATE}} law. Identify any statutory or common-law notice requirements, required contents, notice period, service method, and consequence of defect. Provide citations for verification."

Claims / regimes known to have pre-suit requirements but not detailed here (check if applicable):

- **Tort claims against government entities** — federal FTCA (28 U.S.C. § 2675), state tort-claims acts (every state has one; 60–180 day windows; hyper-strict content requirements; late notice = absolute bar).
- **Employment discrimination (federal).** EEOC charge (not a demand letter, but a pre-suit prerequisite) under Title VII, ADA, ADEA.
- **FLSA pre-suit** — not required, but often used.
- **Lemon-law claims** — every state has one; each has different pre-suit notice mechanics.
- **Mechanics liens and construction lien perfection** — pre-lien notice, not demand-letter mechanics, but overlap.
- **Securities-fraud class actions** — PSLRA and state blue-sky equivalents.
- **Landlord-tenant** — state-specific cure-or-quit notice requirements.
- **HOA / condominium disputes** — state-specific pre-suit mediation requirements.

**Rule.** Never assume a jurisdiction does not have a pre-suit regime. The cost of checking is one `legal-research` call. The cost of missing one is an entire claim.

## Updating this file

This table is a snapshot. Statutes are amended; case law evolves. When `legal-research` returns a newer authority or a changed requirement, update the row and note `[VERIFY]` as lifted.