How has the court considered a letter in which counsel alleges that the insured was a restraint on competition in violation of federal and state antitrust laws?

In Seneca Insurance Company v. Kemper Insurance Company, 2004 WL 1145830 (S.D.N.Y.) at para 5, the court considered a letter in which counsel alleged that the insured’s actions constituted a restraint on competition in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and that his client had suffered damages as a result. Counsel sought a meeting to seek a possible resolution of the matter and stated that if the meeting did not occur, counsel would proceed accordingly on the client’s behalf. In deciding that the letter was a written demand for monetary damages, the court considered the following: the wording of the letter; counsel’s request for a meeting in order to demand monetary damages; and the reference to the letter as a “claim” in the insured’s pleadings. Analysis