本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

bad-faith-demand

Drafts time-limited policy-limits demand letters that create an opportunity-to-settle record for third-party bad faith exposure. Use when the user mentions time-limited demand, policy limits demand, bad faith notice, Stowers demand, civil remedy notice, failure to settle demand, excess exposure letter, insurer settlement opportunity, or needs help with acceptance mechanics for a policy-limits offer. Also trigger for Georgia O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1 compliance, Florida statutory bad faith prerequisites, or documenting insurer refusal to settle.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md7.6 KB
  • LICENSE.txt10.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Time-Limited Policy Limits Demand

Produces a defensible time-limited settlement demand with clear acceptance mechanics, sourced damages, and jurisdiction-aware bad faith framing. A single procedural defect (ambiguous acceptance, missing statutory requirement, sloppy deadline) can destroy the bad faith claim.

ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED — Always require attorney review before sending.

Pre-Draft Intake

Gather before drafting (skip only if user says "use defaults"):

  1. Jurisdiction and posture — state; pre-suit / in suit / pre-post discovery
  2. Insurer identifiers — claim number, policy number, adjuster, all insureds
  3. Liability evidence — reports, photos, witness statements, citations
  4. Damages proof — medical records/bills, wage loss, prognosis, future care
  5. Policy limits — confirmed amount or plan to confirm
  6. Lien status — health insurer, Medicare/Medicaid, ERISA, hospital, workers' comp
  7. Settlement authority — confirmed from client on amount and release scope

Defaults if user skips: pre-suit posture; full limits demand; standard BI release of named insured; response window marked [VERIFY JURISDICTION]; professional tone.

Stop and request if settlement authority or policy limits are missing.

Workflow

1. Map Jurisdictional Requirements

  • Identify theory: common-law failure-to-settle, statutory bad faith, unfair claims practices
  • Verify notice/cure requirements, service methods, required content
  • Flag unverified legal statements as [VERIFY]
  • If statutory notice required (e.g., FL Civ. Remedy Notice), draft separately unless statute allows integration

2. Draft Liability Narrative

  • 5-10 sentences, evidence-cited
  • Address obvious defenses and comparative fault
  • Tie liability clarity to foreseeable excess exposure
  • Must be defensible if read to a jury — do not overstate

3. Present Damages Exposure

  • Itemized specials with documentation references
  • Permanency and future care with source support
  • Plausible verdict range rationale; mark unsourced research [VERIFY]
  • Ground excess-exposure argument in actual numbers

4. Structure Offer Terms

  • Clear, unequivocal offer within limits or specified amount
  • Define release scope, parties released, claims reserved
  • Define payment mechanics: payee, delivery method, timing
  • Acceptance must be objectively measurable — zero ambiguity

5. Set Deadline

  • Specific date, time, and time zone
  • Brief reasonableness justification
  • Automatic withdrawal if not accepted exactly as specified
  • Align with statutory minimum response periods

6. Frame Bad Faith Exposure

  • Professional tone — no threats, no inflammatory language
  • State excess exposure risk and insurer duty to protect insured
  • Request insurer communicate demand to insured
  • No coercive language

7. Delivery and Record-Keeping

  • Delivery channels per jurisdictional requirements
  • Written acceptance to a tracked inbox
  • Exhibit index with labeled attachments
  • Preserve proof of delivery

Letter Template

[Date]

Via [email + certified/overnight if required]
[Adjuster Name], [Insurer]
[Address]
Re: [Claimant] v. [Insured]
Claim No.: [ ] | Policy No.: [ ] | Loss Date: [ ]

This is a time-limited policy-limits demand to protect your insured
from excess exposure.

LIABILITY
[2-4 sentences with exhibit references]

DAMAGES
- Specials to date: $[ ] (Ex. [ ])
- Future care/prognosis: [ ] (Ex. [ ])
- Wage loss: $[ ] (Ex. [ ])
- A reasonable jury could return a verdict exceeding policy limits.

OFFER
In exchange for tender of full liability limits of $[ ] under Policy
No. [ ], [Claimant] will execute a release of [Named Insured(s)] for
all bodily injury claims arising from the [date] incident. The release
does not include [reserved claims/parties].

ACCEPTANCE
Written acceptance must be received by [date], [time], [time zone] at
[email]. Payment via [overnight/wire] to:
Payee: "[Client Name] and [Law Firm] Client Trust Account"
Address: [ ]

LIENS
[Claimant] will satisfy valid liens from proceeds. [Medicare/ERISA
escrow/holdback or cooperation language if applicable.]

DEADLINE
This offer expires automatically if not accepted exactly as stated by
the deadline above.

NOTICE
Given clear liability and damages, this demand provides a reasonable
opportunity to protect the insured from excess exposure. Please provide
a copy to your insured so they may seek independent counsel.

ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit Index: [list]

Required Letter Sections

Caption block (parties, claim/policy numbers) | Offer and acceptance mechanics | Liability summary with exhibits | Damages summary with totals | Deadline and withdrawal | Release scope | Lien/Medicare handling | Delivery instructions | Exhibit index

Post-Draft Checks

Ask after delivering the draft:

  1. Are policy limits confirmed, or must we request confirmation first?
  2. Does the release scope correctly identify all parties released and claims reserved?
  3. Is the deadline window reasonable for jurisdiction and case posture?
  4. Any statutory notice requirements (FL Civil Remedy Notice, GA § 9-11-67.1) needing separate filing?

Default recommendation if no response: confirm policy limits and release scope (most common failure points).

Quality Audit

  • Offer amount matches confirmed limits or stated sum
  • Acceptance mechanics objectively measurable — no ambiguity
  • Deadline is specific date, time, and time zone
  • Liability narrative evidence-cited and defensible
  • Damages itemized with documentation references
  • Release scope defines who is released and what is reserved
  • Lien/Medicare handling addressed
  • No impossible conditions or hidden terms
  • Names, dates, claim numbers, dollar amounts cross-checked
  • Exhibit index complete and attachments labeled
  • Jurisdictional statutory requirements verified or flagged [VERIFY]
  • Tone professional — no threats or inflammatory language

Acceptance Checklist

  • Written acceptance received by deadline
  • Amount matches limits or stated sum
  • All insureds match release scope
  • Payment method and payees correct
  • No added conditions; if added, treat as counteroffer

Jurisdiction Flags

All [VERIFY] — confirm current law before use:

StateKey IssueReference
TexasStowers elementsG.A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. American Indemnity Co., 15 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. 1929)
CaliforniaPrudent-insurer standard; Cal. Civ. Code § 1542 waiverComunale, Crisci
GeorgiaStrict statutory TLD requirements and service methodsO.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1
FloridaStatutory bad faith, civil remedy notice, tort reform changesFla. Stat. § 624.155

Guardrails

Anti-hallucination: Do not assert unverified legal standards — mark [VERIFY]. Do not misstate limits, injuries, or specials. Do not invent verdict data or fabricate case citations.

Ethics: No impossible conditions, hidden terms, or ambiguous acceptance steps. No direct communication with represented insureds without attorney approval. Disclose only necessary medical detail.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

中国大陆地区法院类案快速检索与《案件检索报告》(DOCX)生成技能。以案件五项要点(案由/法律关系、争议焦点、关键事实、我方诉请与诉讼地位、请求权基础法条)为检索锚点,经一次四问确认即开工(其中**检索地域范围**与**裁判时间范围**为强制选择题,默认范围为「2021年1月1日以后裁判的浙江省范围内的法院案例」,用户点选默认后须回显该范围提示);按**请求权基础、法律关系、案件事实三要素**判定高匹配——用户**指定**检索特定结果的案例时结果相似度计入评分(四要素满分 10 分),用户**未指定**时结果相似度不作为高匹配考虑因素(三要素满分 8 分);r1 判定须**核对法条版本与时间效力**,援引已失效旧法条者不得给满分;以语义向量检索为主召回、精确结构检索为条件兜底,本地脚本加权打分后按「得分率 > 法院层级 > 审判程序 > 裁判日期」排序,并检测**同院同日同标题的重复入库**案件、疑似重复者不占入报名额;截取匹配度最高的 5–10 例类案,逐案调详情核验案号并摘录判词原文,最后直接输出含页脚页码的 DOCX 报告(默认保存至桌面)。全流程人工确认 1 次、检索类调用控制在 2 次召回 + ≤10 次详情以内,报告阶段检索冻结。未指定结果时三要素高匹配而结果相反者亦会入报(逐例标注结果方向),指定结果时结果相反者一律剔除;报告内以两处固定声明披露「未设不利先例定向检索路径」的局限。当用户要求「快速检索类似案例」「找几个正向案例」「快速版案例检索报告」「检索 5 到 10 个类案并出报告」「出一份类案检索报告 docx」时使用。需要四象限归位、反向案例定向检索、补充召回多轮迭代或 14 分制硬软条件精判时,应使用完整版技能「案例检索报告Plus」而非本技能。基于华宇元典法律数据 MCP。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

88查企业风险查询与分析工具 —— 专注于中国大陆企业的法务风险查询与分析,覆盖经营异常、行政处罚、监管措施、被执行人、失信被执行人、司法案件等风险类型。支持公司名称、统一社会信用代码、companyId 三种输入方式,自动完成风险查询并输出结构化风险分析总结。 触发场景:仅当用户意图为查询企业风险/法务风险时触发。包括但不限于:企业风险查询、公司风险、经营异常、行政处罚、监管措施、被执行人、失信被执行人、司法风险、风险扫描、风险评估、企业合规审查、风险报告、XX公司有什么风险、XX公司安全吗、XX公司有没有处罚、XX公司被执行过吗。 不触发场景:纯粹的企业信息查询(如查公司、搜企业、工商信息、注册资本、法人代表、股东结构、专利商标等)不应触发本技能,请使用其他 cha88 系列工具。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Manages Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative deposition workflows — drafting notice topics with reasonable particularity, building examination outlines, defending designees, handling objections, and preserving binding admissions for summary judgment or trial. Use when drafting or responding to 30(b)(6) notices, selecting and preparing designees, building topic-by-topic outlines, or triaging scope and privilege disputes. Trigger keywords: 30(b)(6), corporate representative deposition, topic list, designee, notice analysis, deposition objections, corporate admissions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Guides taking and defending Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative depositions. Drafts topic lists with reasonable particularity, builds examination outlines for binding corporate admissions, analyzes noticed topics for objections, and prepares designees. Use when drafting 30(b)(6) notices, preparing corporate deposition topics, selecting or preparing designees, or defending corporate representative depositions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Drafts FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification submissions demonstrating substantial equivalence under 21 CFR Part 807. Supports Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated pathways. Use when preparing Class II medical device regulatory filings, substantial equivalence analyses, or FDA premarket submissions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Drafts a recordable Abstract of Judgment to create a judgment lien on a debtor's real property. Extracts party names, monetary components, and judgment details from case documents, then applies jurisdiction-specific formatting and certification requirements. Use post-judgment in commercial litigation when enforcing monetary awards, perfecting judgment liens, or preparing lien filings with the county recorder.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

CSlawyer1985 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する