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
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
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
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
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
Before a court can resolve a dispute, it often needs to determine what law applies to that dispute. In certain insurance cases, that question will appear to have an easy answer. Some policies include explicit choice-of-law...more
Insurers frequently raise the timing of notice as a defense to a policyholder’s claim for coverage. This is an “all or nothing defense,” as “late notice” can create a forfeiture of coverage. As a result, it gets litigated...more
The “notice-prejudice” rule gives a pass to policyholders who breach the notice or cooperation provisions of their policies, if the breach is found not to have prejudiced the insurer. Sometimes, the late notice does not...more
Insurance law generally imposes on a policyholder the duty to give timely notice of claims to its insurance company. Sometimes, because of forgetfulness, ignorance, neglect, or a number of other reasons, companies fail to...more
On April 25, 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a decision in Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. v. Stresscon Co. Stresscon, a subcontracting concrete company, entered into a settlement agreement – without providing notice to its...more
On Monday, April 25, 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. v. Stresscon Co., No. 13SC815 (Colo. Apr. 25, 2016), holding that an insurer does not need to show prejudice to enforce a...more
In Boyle v. Zurich American Insurance Company, 472 Mass. 649 (2015), decided on September 14, 2015, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”) indicated, to the dismay of the insurance defense bar, that the right to...more
Joining a majority of states that have addressed the issue, the Montana Supreme Court recently held that “an insurer who does not receive timely notice required by the terms of an insurance policy must demonstrate prejudice...more
In a majority of jurisdictions, the “notice-prejudice rule” provides that an insurer may not deny a claim on grounds of late notice without demonstrating prejudice. The rule is statutory in some states and judicially crafted...more