# authority.md — mva-demand-builder

Canonical text lives in `mo-authority.md` (bundled). This file is the demand slice.
**Verified July 16, 2026.** Legend: ✅ verified · 🔶 new · ⚠️ corrected · ⛔ open, do not state.

## ⚠️ A 30-day demand forfeits prejudgment interest. Build compliant by default.

### § 408.040.3 ✅ VERIFIED — eff. Jan. 15, 2015 (L. 2014). **No 2019 amendment exists.**

Prejudgment interest is awarded where the claimant made a demand to the party **and to that party's
liability insurer if known**, and the judgment exceeds it. Interest runs from **90 days after
receipt** (certified mail return receipt), **or** from the date the demand was **rejected without
counteroffer**, whichever is earlier.

**The four requirements — § 408.040.3(1)–(4):**
1. **(1)** writing, **certified mail return receipt requested**
2. **(2)** **claimant's affidavit** — nature of the claim, nature of injuries, general computation of
   each damage category, supporting documentation if reasonably available
3. **(3)** for WD/PI/BI: **provider list**, **copies of all reasonably available medical bills**,
   **employer list** if wage loss is claimed, and **written authorizations** letting the party, its
   representatives, and the insurer obtain employment and medical records
4. **(4)** **reference this section and be left open for NINETY DAYS**

**Plus: file suit within 120 days of receipt or forfeit** (absent written agreement to longer).

🔶 **Requirement (3) is the sharper tooth.** A 90-day letter **without authorizations** fails exactly
as a 30-day letter with them. *Emery v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*, 976 S.W.2d 439 (Mo. banc 1998) ✅ —
**acknowledgment or actual notice does not cure a formal defect** (overruling *Larabee v. Washington*,
793 S.W.2d 357 ✅).

**Capacity:** minor/incompetent/deceased claimant — the affidavit may be signed by a person
reasonably appearing qualified as next friend, conservator, or personal representative; for wrongful
death, per § 537.080.

**Rate:** ⚠️ FFR + 5% is the **postjudgment** rate (§ 408.040.3). A judgment **for** prejudgment
interest bears FFR + **3%** (§ 408.040.4). ⛔ **The accrual rate during the pre-judgment window is
genuinely unsettled — do not assert one.**

**Carve-out:** § 408.040 **does not apply to medical malpractice** (§ 538.300).
🔶 *Werremeyer v. KC Auto Salvage Co.*, 134 S.W.3d 633 (Mo. banc 2004) ✅ — prejudgment interest
reaches **punitive** damages too.

### § 537.058 ✅ VERIFIED — eff. Aug. 28, 2017. Never amended.

🔶 **Scope gates first — the statute does not reach every demand.** § 537.058.1(2) covers only a
demand **within the insurer's limit of liability** that **by its terms must be accepted within a
specified period**. A demand **above limits** is not one. A demand with **no deadline** is not one.
**§ 537.058.6** — **does not apply** to demands issued **within 90 days of a jury trial** on a filed
claim.

**Form — § 537.058.2:** writing; references the section; **certified mail RRR to the tort-feasor's
liability insurer**; eight material terms — (1) acceptance period **not less than 90 days from
receipt**; (2) amount or a request for limits; (3) **date and location of the loss**; (4) **claim
number** if known; (5) **description of all known injuries**; (6) **party/parties to be released**;
(7) **description of claims released**; (8) offer of **unconditional release** under **§ 537.060**.

**Enclosures — § 537.058.3:** provider list + **HIPAA-compliant authorizations**; employer list +
authorizations **if** wage/earnings/profit loss is asserted.

**§ 537.058.5** — may require payment within a period **not less than 10 days after the insurer
receives the fully executed unconditional release**.
**§ 537.058.7** — a noncompliant demand "shall not be considered as a reasonable opportunity to
settle" and is inadmissible in a suit alleging extracontractual damages. ⛔ **Its opening clause may
limit it to the § 537.065 assignment posture** (claimant as assignee, or tort-feasor for claimant's
benefit) — which would mean it does not reach first-party bad faith. **Re-pull before relying.**

## 🔶 THE DUAL-COMPLIANCE TABLE — neither statute subsumes the other

| Requirement | § 408.040.3 | § 537.058 |
|---|---|---|
| Writing | ✅ | ✅ |
| Certified mail RRR | ✅ party/reps **and** insurer if known | ✅ **insurer** |
| Reference the section | ✅ (.3(4)) | ✅ (.2) |
| Open 90 days | ✅ (.3(4)) | ✅ (.2(1)) |
| **Claimant affidavit** | ✅ (.3(2)) | ❌ |
| **Copies of medical bills** | ✅ (.3(3)) | ❌ |
| Provider list | ✅ (.3(3)) | ✅ (.3(1)) |
| HIPAA authorizations | ✅ (.3(3)) | ✅ (.3(1)) |
| Employer list + authorizations | ✅ if wage claim | ✅ if wage claim |
| Date and location of loss | ❌ | ✅ (.2(3)) |
| Claim number | ❌ | ✅ (.2(4)) |
| Injury description | ❌ | ✅ (.2(5)) |
| Parties / claims released | ❌ | ✅ (.2(6)–(7)) |
| **§ 537.060 unconditional release** | ❌ | ✅ (.2(8)) |
| Payment ≥ 10 days post-release | ❌ | ✅ (.5) |
| **File suit within 120 days** | ✅ or forfeit | ❌ |

**Build the union. Flag deviations. Do not default to non-compliance.**

## *Jameson v. Still* — cite it correctly, and teach both edges

✅ **Cite: No. SC99279 (Mo. banc Apr. 26, 2022).**
⚠️ **Do NOT cite No. ED109161 (Mo. App. E.D. June 22, 2021)** — it was **transferred and is vacated**.
**The absence of an S.W.3d cite for ED109161 is the tell, not a database gap.**
⛔ S.W.3d cite for SC99279 not confirmed — cite by docket.

**Holding:** neither § 408.040.3(4) nor § 537.058.2(1) makes the offer irrevocable. Ordinary contract
law governs; **a counteroffer operates as a rejection**. The Court **expressly declined** to decide
whether the demand complied with either statute.

🔶 **Valence: claimant-favorable.** The insurer counteroffered, then tried to "accept" 56 days later
and lost. **Teach it as a shield.** Once the adjuster counteroffers the demand is dead and cannot be
resurrected. But note the interaction: § 408.040.3 starts interest early only on rejection
**without** a counteroffer. **Track which happened.** *Lober v. Kansas City*, 100 S.W.2d 267 (Mo.
1936) ✅ — no common-law prejudgment interest in tort absent statute.

## ⚠️ Missouri has no codified rules of evidence

Do not write that the letter "is inadmissible under the applicable rules of evidence." The
settlement-offer exclusion is **common law**; **§ 537.058.7** governs admissibility in the
extracontractual context; **FRE 408** applies only in federal court. Cite what you mean.

## Liability, damages, and the rest

- **Comparative fault:** *Gustafson v. Benda*, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc **1983**) ✅ — pure; reduces,
  does not bar. ⛔ pin cite.
- **Specials:** § 490.715.5 ✅ — **actual cost** since 8/28/2017; the amendment **deleted** the 2005
  rebuttable presumption. *Brancati*, 571 S.W.3d 625 ✅ — one-directional; charges evidence survives.
  *Deck*, 322 S.W.3d 536, **539** ✅ construed the **former** statute. **Carry billed / adjusted /
  paid / outstanding.**
- **§ 303.390** ✅ — if the client was **uninsured at impact**, the non-economic argument that is most
  of this letter may be gone. Check before drafting. See `mo-authority.md` § 5 — **the § 303.390.2
  six-month safe harbor runs on the insurer's notice and inverts easily.**
- **Negligence per se:** ⛔ elements — no case identified. §§ 304.012, 304.017, 304.351 ⛔ not pulled.
  **A citation alone is not liability**, and a guilty plea and a payment of a fine have different
  evidentiary consequences ⛔.
- **MAI self-check** 🔶: "which MAI would this go to the jury on?" **MAI 17.05** (careful lookout) and
  **MAI 17.04** (failure to act after danger apparent) are real and in active use per *Brancati*;
  17.04's Notes on Use expressly permit comparative-fault submission. A demand that tracks the
  verdict director reads differently to an adjuster who knows. Beware the **roving commission** —
  *Klotz*, 311 S.W.3d 752, 766 ✅; *Scanwell*, 162 S.W.3d 477, 482 ✅ (pin cites ⛔).
- **Limited limits:** the limits demand plus the **§ 537.065** path is the case. § 537.065 ✅ —
  30-day notice, 30-day judgment bar, unconditional intervention. See `mo-authority.md` § 12.