Below are sample requests for admission in a car accident case. These are pretty simple requests that should go out when you serve the complaint. Getting the defendant to take positions from the very beginning of the case helps you box the defendant early into the positions they are going to take, often before they have spent much time thinking about the case.
Another fun thing to is the police report and the statements made at the crash scene by the defendant or the text of the police report and see if the defendant will deny them. Often, they will deny the sky is blue and never amend those answers before trial. If the defendant is taking ridiculous positions, this is a great way to underscore that with the jury.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND
KEVIN STERN – Plaintiff
v
STATE FARM, et al. – Defendants,
CASE NO. 24-C-04-006577 OT
Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions of Facts and Genuineness of Documents to Defendant
The Plaintiff, Kevin Stern, by his undersigned attorneys, pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-424, requests that the Defendant State Farm admit or deny, within 30 days of the date of service of the request that:
Uninsured Motorist Cases
Request No. 1. Plaintiff was insured with State Farm at the time of the car crash (see Plaintiff’s Interrogatories for definition of “car crash”).
Request No. 2. Plaintiff maintained uninsured motorist coverage at the time of the car crash.
Request No. 3. Because Plaintiff maintained uninsured motorist coverage with State Farm, State Farm has a contractual obligation to pay Plaintiff the damages he would have or will recover at trial against Mr. Manning, had Mr. Manning had $300,000 in coverage for this car crash.
Request No. 4. The only policy applicable to this case is Policy No. 0272802460101017, issued by State Farm, with liability limits of $300,000.00 per person.
Request No. 5. There was no umbrella or excess insurance policy applicable to this car crash other than Policy No. 0272802460101017, issued by State Farm with liability limits of $300,000.00 per person at the time of the collision.
Request No. 6. Defendant Manning had no other auto insurance policy for any other vehicles at the time of the car crash.
Request No. 7. Defendant Manning was not carrying out any duties for an employer at the time of the collision.
Request No. 8. Defendant Manning did not reside with anyone who had a policy of automobile insurance other than Policy No. 0 0272802490101017, issued by State Farm, with liability limits of $300,000 per person at the time of the car crash.
Request No. 9. There was no commercial automobile liability insurance that would cover this car crash.
Request No. 10. You have no evidence that any other policy of insurance covers besides the one that State Farm issued (State Farm Policy # 0272802490101017).
Request No. 11. There was no umbrella or excess insurance policy for this incident.
Request No. 12. Defendant Manning was not a lessee with insurance coverage through any lessor at the time of the collision.
Request No. 13. Defendant Manning’s negligence caused the car crash.
Request No. 14. The personal injuries suffered by Plaintiff are the result of Defendant Manning’s negligence.
Request No. 15. Plaintiff suffered injuries in the crash.
Request No. 16. Defendant suffered injuries in the crash.
Request No. 17: All of the attached medical records and medical bills for services rendered from January 3, 2018 through June 19, 2020 and bates-stamped at 001-5464 are authentic.
Request No. 18: You have no evidence you can present at trial to support the affirmative defense you asserted in your Answer that the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent, assumed the risk. or that she failed to mitigate her damages.
Respectfully submitted,
Miller & Zois, LLC
Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
1 South St, #2450
Baltimore, MD 21202
(410)779-4600
(410)760-8922 (Fax)
Attorney for the Plaintiff
More on Car Crash Request for Admission
Requests for admission are rarely used in car accident cases. They are the least used of the major discovery devices we have at our disposal such as requests for production of documents, interrogatories, and depositions.
According to one study, requests for admission comprise only 5.6% of all discovery requests filed, compared to oral deposition notices and interrogatories which comprise 43.1% and 35.4%, respectively, of all discovery requests.
What is the problem? Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ experience tells them they rarely are successful in getting substantive concessions through their use. “I don’t bother because they just deny everything” is a common refrain.
But that is the beauty of requests for admission. The denials themselves are useful. Either the defendant is going to take a real, honest position or they are not. If provide honest answers, you have them boxed in for trial in a way that can eliminate a lot of problems with proof down the road. (Are the medical records authentic?) If their path is “deny, deny, deny” think about how that is going to look to a jury when the defendant and their own experts take a different position.
On a more technical level, requests for admission are helpful in nailing down many incidental facts such as employer-employee, agent-principal, scope of employment type questions that can help you figure out who the defendants are and what the insurance coverage might be.
The great thing from our vantage point is the defendant is forced to take a position early in the litigation. When a request for admission is admitted or not answered, it is, technically at least, conclusively established for purposes of that lawsuit. Maryland Rule 2-424 and Federal Rule 36 are ‘self-executing,’ so if they are not answer in 30 days they are admitted. This weapon expediates response time which allows you to find out where defendant will go and what issues they intend to context so you can plan accordingly.
One final related thought: draft your requests for admission as it the defendant may never respond. Often, particularly with in-house counsel in auto tort cases, the defense lawyer will just ignore them.
A responding party, however, runs the risk of disaster if it fails to timely or properly re
spond to requests for admission because they are deemed admitted if not answered in 30 days. Will a judge hold the defendant’s feet to the fire on this? In most cases they will not (and often should not).
But we have seen cases get settled for more than the fair settlement value because that issue was looming over a case. Moreover, there are Maryland cases where the judge has said “enough” and deemed the unanswered requests as admitted. So be sure to add in some “you did it and you are glad you did it” type requests for admission.