The Seventh Circuit confirmed that the notice requirements of “claims-made” policies entitle insurers to deny coverage where, before the policy’s inception, the insured knows of circumstances that “might reasonably be expected” to give rise to a claim. Koransky, Bouwer & Poracky, P.C. v. The Bar Plan Mut. Ins. Co., Case No. 12-1579 (7th Cir.), _____ F. Supp. 3d_______ (“KBP”). 2013 WL 1296724.
An insured law firm, KBP, purchased consecutive malpractice policies from the same insurer for the periods 2006-2007 (“Policy 1”) and 2007-2008 (“Policy 2”). During Policy 1 it represented a client in a series of transactions. It misfiled a contract which resulted in the collapse of a deal. Policy 1 expired about two months after the transaction fell through.
In the renewal application for Policy 2, KBP denied knowledge of any unreported acts or omissions that might give rise to a claim. Sometime later it learned that its client was considering a malpractice suit in connection with the failed transaction. It notified the insurer under Policy 2.
The insurer disclaimed coverage on the basis that KBP had learned of the facts giving rise to the claim before inception of Policy 2. It also took the position that, because KBP had not given notification before expiration of Policy 1, cover was precluded under that policy also. Litigation ensued. The district court granted summary judgment in the insurer’s favor. Its decision was upheld on appeal.
The court reasoned that timely notice to the insurer was a “condition precedent” to coverage under a claims-made policy. It was reasonable for KBP to have been aware of the possibility of a malpractice claim once it was known that the transaction had collapsed and the firm’s related mitigation efforts had failed. The insured should have notified the insurer as soon as it became aware of these circumstances. KBP did not properly report the claim during Policy 1, and there was no coverage under Policy 2 as KBP was aware of circumstances giving rise to it prior to inception.
The insurer was not required to show prejudice before denying the claim. In the court’s view, applying such a requirement would create an expansion of coverage for which no premium was paid.
Click here to view the opinion.