Civil Litigation,
Insurance,
California Supreme Court
Oct. 29, 2019
Pitzer suggests it might be time to reexamine the notice-prejudice rule as applied to claims-made-and-reported policies
In Slater the Court of Appeal declared that no authority supports the proposition that public policy mandates that the notice-prejudice rule be applied to claims-made-and-reported policies. Now, almost 30 years later, the California Supreme Court has decided that the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy.
Christopher Kim
Los Offices of Christopher KimEmail: ckim@christopherkimlaw.com
Christopher is a Los Angeles-based attorney specializing in 11th-hour civil trials of complex matters and has some interest in insurance coverage disputes involving claims-made policies, including directors & officers and professional liability policies.
Under the notice-prejudice rule, unless an insurer can demonstrate substantial prejudice, a policyholder's failure to provide timely notice will not result in a loss of coverage. Northwestern Title Security Co. v. Flack, 6 Cal. App. 3d 134, 141 (1970). Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 8 Cal. 5th 93 ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In