Notice-Prejudice Rule Does not Apply to Claims Made and Reported Policy
Barry Zalma
Jun 23, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/grVTiSNV and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gKQng4Ce and at https://lnkd.in/gBWMqT2U and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4500 posts.
The Kentucky Supreme Court was asked to determine if the claims-made-and-reported management liability policy (“Policy”) Allied World Specialty Insurance Company (“Allied World”), issued to Kentucky State University (“KSU”) provided coverage because KSU did not comply with the Policy’s notice provisions. The trial court applied the notice prejudice rule and the Court of Appeal reversed and the case was brought to the Kentucky Supreme Court in Kentucky State University v. Darwin National Assurance Company N/K/A Allied World Specialty Insurance Company, No. 2021-SC-0130-DG, Supreme Court of Kentucky (June 15, 2023)
FACTS
The Policy KSU purchased from Allied World was for the period from July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2015. The Policy allows claims made against KSU within the policy period to be reported to Allied World up to ninety days after the end of the policy period. The Policy expired July 1, 2015, and the 90-day extended reporting period ended September 29, 2015.
During the policy period two professors submitted Notices of Charges of Discrimination to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and Kentucky Commission on Human Rights (collectively, “EEOC Charges”) related to their employment at KSU. KSU received written notice of the EEOC Charges on June 23, 2015. On September 2, 2015, the professors brought employment-related claims against KSU in Franklin Circuit Court, the substance of which would be covered under the Policy. On October 2, 2015, three days after the extended reporting period expired, KSU notified Allied World who denied coverage.
KSU eventually sued Allied World and both moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of KSU.
The circuit court concluded that the notice-prejudice doctrine applied. The Court of Appeals disagreed and held that the terms of the Policy are clear about the extended reporting period. The Court of Appeals determined that the notice-prejudice rule does not apply to the Policy in this case.
ANALYSIS
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the circuit court properly interpreted the notice provisions within the claims-made-and-reported insurance policy issued by Allied World to KSU and then, based upon that interpretation, correctly assessed the role, if any, that the notice-prejudice rule plays in this case.
Construction and Interpretation of Contracts.
In the absence of ambiguity, a written instrument will be enforced strictly according to its terms, and a court will interpret the contract’s terms by assigning language its ordinary meaning and without resort to extrinsic evidence.
THE POLICY.
The Policy provisions which explain the insurer’s coverage obligations in relation to the insured’s reporting obligations and which present the notice requirements are found in three clauses all of which require notice no later than ninety days after the end of the policy period.
Furthermore, with regard to reporting beyond the policy period, the Policy also provided KSU the right to purchase a Discovery Period after the expiration of the Policy. KSU did not purchase Discovery Period coverage.
THE NOTICE-PREJUDICE RULE.
The Policy expressly informed KSU that a condition of coverage – a condition precedent – was giving written notice of a claim as soon as practicable, but in no event was such notice of any claim to be provided to Allied World later than ninety days after the end of the Policy period. Since KSU did not purchase Discovery Period coverage, so the reporting period did not extend beyond the 90-day reporting period, the Policy clearly defined when notice was due and the consequences if notice is late.
The Policy unambiguously informed KSU that if the notice provisions were not met, Allied World had no obligation to KSU under the Policy.
Unlike the circuit court, the Supreme Court concluded that the Policy provisions at issue are unambiguous. Given the plain terms of the contract, their full force and effect does not equate to creating a windfall for the insurer. In the absence of circumstances justifying relief, courts do not make contracts different from those that the parties make for themselves, even when forfeiture provisions are harsh.
Application of the Notice-Prejudice Rule to Claims-Made-and-Reported Policies.
The Supreme Court concluded: “A claims-made-and-reported policy provides coverage only for claims made against the insured and reported to the insurer during the life of the policy regardless of when the underlying incident occurred. Timely notice of a claim is the event that not only triggers coverage, but also defines its scope.”
An occurrence-based policy is different. The Supreme Court concluded that Allied World was entitled to deny coverage to KSU when KSU did not comply with the notice requirements.
ZALMA OPINION
The claims made and reported liability insurance policy was designed to avoid long-term liability exposure faced by an “occurrence” policy and to avoid the insured’s ability to extend reporting requirements by use of the notice-prejudice rule that allowed a late report as long as the insurer was not prejudiced by the delay. In this case a three day delay would not cause prejudice to the insurer but it breached the clear and unambiguous condition precedent to coverage. KSU had months to report the claim and waited too long.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; https://creators.newsbreak.com/home/content/post; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Consider subscribing to substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde.
Concealing a Weapon Used in a Murder is an Intentional & Criminal Act
Post 5002
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmacf4DK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gav3GAA2 and at https://lnkd.in/ggxP49GF and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
In Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Howard I. Rosenberg v. Hudson Insurance Company, No. 22-3275, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (February 11, 2025) the Third Circuit resolved whether the insurers owed a defense for murder and acts performed to hide the fact of a murder and the murder weapon.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Adam Rosenberg and Christian Moore-Rouse befriended one another while they were students at the Community College of Allegheny County. On December 21, 2019, however, while at his parents’ house, Adam shot twenty-two-year-old Christian in the back of the head with a nine-millimeter Ruger SR9C handgun. Adam then dragged...
Renewal Notices Sent Electronically Are Legal, Approved by the State and Effective
Post 5000
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gpJzZrec, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmkJFqD and at https://lnkd.in/gn3EqeVV and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Washington state law allows insurers to deliver insurance notices and documents electronically if the party has affirmatively consented to that method of delivery and has not withdrawn the consent. The Plaintiffs argued that the terms and conditions statement was not “conspicuous” because it was hidden behind a hyperlink included in a single line of small text. The court found that the statement was sufficiently conspicuous as it was bolded and set off from the surrounding text in bright blue text.
In James Hughes et al. v. American Strategic Insurance Corp et al., No. 3:24-cv-05114-DGE, United States District Court (February 14, 2025) the USDC resolved the dispute.
The court’s reasoning focused on two main points:
1 whether the ...
Rescission in Michigan Requires Preprocurement Fraud
Post 4999
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gGCvgBpK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gern_JjU and at https://lnkd.in/gTPSmQD6 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 4999 posts.
Lie About Where Vehicle Was Garaged After Policy Inception Not Basis for Rescission
This appeal turns on whether fraud occurred in relation to an April 26, 2018 renewal contract for a policy of insurance under the no-fault act issued by plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company (“Encompass”).
In Samuel Tourkow, by David Tourkow v. Michael Thomas Fox, and Sweet Insurance Agency, formerly known as Verbiest Insurance Agency, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. Encompass Indemnity Company, et al, Nos. 367494, 367512, Court of Appeals of Michigan (February 12, 2025) resolved the claims.
The plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company, issued a no-fault insurance policy to Jon and Joyce Fox, with Michael Fox added as an additional insured. The dispute centers on whether fraud occurred in...
Insurance Fraud Leads to Violent Crime
Post 4990
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gDdKMN29, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gKKeHSQg and at https://lnkd.in/gvUU_a-8 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
CRIMINAL CONDUCT NEVER GETS BETTER
In The People v. Dennis Lee Givens, B330497, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (February 3, 2025) Givens appealed to reverse his conviction for human trafficking and sought an order for a new trial.
FACTS
In September 2020, Givens matched with J.C. on the dating app “Tagged.” J.C., who was 20 years old at the time, had known Givens since childhood because their mothers were best friends. After matching, J.C. and Givens saw each other daily, and J.C. began working as a prostitute under Givens’s direction.
Givens set quotas for J.C., took her earnings, and threatened her when she failed to meet his demands. In February 2022, J.C. confided in her mother who then contacted the Los Angeles Police Department. The police ...
Police Officer’s Involvement in Insurance Fraud Results in Jail
Post 4989
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gr_w5vcC, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggs7dVfg and https://lnkd.in/gK3--Kad and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.
Von Harris was convicted of bribery, forgery, and insurance fraud. He appealed his conviction and sentence. His appeal was denied, and the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.
In State Of Ohio v. Von Harris, 2025-Ohio-279, No. 113618, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District (January 30, 2025) the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2024, the trial court sentenced Harris. The trial court sentenced Harris to six months in the county jail on Count 15; 12 months in prison on Counts 6, 8, 11, and 13; and 24 months in prison on Counts 5 and 10, with all counts running concurrent to one another for a total of 24 months in prison. The jury found Harris guilty based on his involvement in facilitating payments to an East Cleveland ...
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRyw5QKG, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gtNWJs95 and at https://lnkd.in/g4c9QCu3, and at https://zalma.com/blog.
To Dispute an Arbitration Finding Party Must File Dispute Within 20 Days
Post 4988
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT SUFFICIENT TO DISPUTE ARBITRATION LATE
In Howard Roy Housen and Valerie Housen v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D2023-2720, Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District (January 22, 2025) the Housens appealed a final judgment in their breach of contract action.
FACTS
The Housens filed an insurance claim with Universal, which was denied, leading them to file a breach of contract action. The parties agreed to non-binding arbitration which resulted in an award not
favorable to the Housens. However, the Housens failed to file a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision within the required 20 days. Instead, they filed a motion for a new trial 29 days after the arbitrator’s decision, citing a clerical error for the delay.
The circuit court ...
