Dominance was the theme of this year’s NCAA basketball tournament, with the UConn men’s team winning back-to-back championships and the South Carolina women’s team reclaiming the title with a perfect record. But let’s not...more
In a pair of decisions issued this week, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the notice-prejudice rule applies to occurrence-based, first-party homeowners’ property policies, notwithstanding any contractual notice period...more
The Supreme Court of Kentucky has held that the notice-prejudice rule does not apply to claims-made-and-reported policies where the policy clearly states notice requirements and unambiguously conditions coverage on the...more
We bring you our July Insurance Update. We begin with two cases about late notice. First, the Kentucky Supreme Court considers whether the notice-prejudice rule applies to claims-made-and-reported policies. Second, the...more
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado, applying Colorado law, has held that claimants were not entitled to coverage for default judgments because the insured dentist failed to provide notice of the...more
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado, applying Colorado law, has held that the notice-prejudice rule does not apply to claims-made liability policies where an insured did not merely provide late...more
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma has held, as a matter of first impression, that no notice-prejudice exception applies under Oklahoma law to a financial institution bond in the case of an...more
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas, applying Kansas law, has held that the notice-prejudice rule does not apply to claims-made policies. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. Great Plains Annual Conference...more
In a matter of first impression, a Kentucky appellate court held that the notice-prejudice rule does not apply to claims-made-and-reported policies. Darwin Nat’l Assurance Co. v. Kentucky State Univ., 2021 WL 1045716 (Ky....more
The “notice-prejudice rule,” often applied in the context of occurrence-type policies, requires an insurer to prove that the insured’s late notice of a claim has substantially prejudiced its ability to investigate the...more
A Missouri federal district court became the second court within the past 15 months to consider whether a state's public policy overrides an insurance policy's choice of law provision. Maritz Holdings v. Certain Underwriters...more
In Fortier v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 916 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2019) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit clarified ERISA's timing requirements with respect to appealing an adverse benefits determination...more
Welcome to CICR’s annual review of insurance cases. Here, we spotlight five decisions from the last year that you should know about—and five pending cases to watch. As our picks for “Cases to Know” indicate, 2019 was not a...more
Claims-made liability insurance policies typically require the policyholder to notify the insurer of a claim within a set amount of time — typically during the policy period, or within a specific period of time after the end...more
Many contracts include a choice-of-law provision in which the parties agree to use a particular jurisdiction’s set of laws to govern the contract. These provisions promote predictability. No matter where a dispute may arise...more
The California Supreme Court has struck a blow to insurers' attempts to contract out of more policyholder friendly jurisdictions, holding that the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy. Pitzer College v. Indian...more
In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, the California Supreme Court resolved two previously open questions in insurance law: (1) it concluded that the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy of...more
In answering two questions posed to it by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court on August 29, 2019, addressed two significant issues: 1) whether California’s common law notice-prejudice rule is a...more
On August 29, 2019, the California Supreme Court issued a decision on an important issue to many insurance coverage disputes. In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., the Court held that California’s...more
In November 2018, we noted that the California Supreme Court had agreed to resolve Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, a case that hinged on the importance and application of California’s notice-prejudice rule....more
Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, — P.3d –, 2019 WL 4065521 (2019); California Supreme Court, Case No. S239510 (Aug. 29, 2019). On certified questions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California...more
In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. (No. S239510, filed 8/29/19), the California Supreme Court held that California’s notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy in the insurance context, supporting the...more
Although California courts generally enforce an insurance policy’s choice of law provision, a long-recognized exception is when the other state’s law conflicts with California’s fundamental public policy. See, e.g. Nedlloyd...more
On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public...more