§ 999.4.Compliance; Claimant Needs Counsel; Conflict With Civil Discovery Act

This section gives Chapter 3.2 its teeth in later litigation. If a claimant, or someone standing in the claimant's shoes as an assignee, later sues the tortfeasor's liability insurer for extracontractual damages, a time-limited demand that didn't substantially comply with this chapter's requirements can't be treated as a reasonable offer to settle within policy limits for purposes of that lawsuit. In practice, that pushes claimants and their attorneys to get the mechanics of § 999.1 right if they want the demand to carry weight later.

The section carves out an important exception: it doesn't apply to a claimant who isn't represented by counsel. Unrepresented claimants aren't held to this chapter's formal compliance standard when it comes to arguing that a rejected demand was reasonable.

Finally, § 999.4(c) resolves any tension between this chapter and the Civil Discovery Act in the discovery-holder's favor: if a court finds the two conflict, the Civil Discovery Act (Title 4, commencing with § 2016.010 of Part 4) controls.