PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for Claims-made and Reported

Claims-made and Reported

New York Federal Court Finds Insured’s Failure to Provide Notice of Subpoena Did Not Bar Coverage for Later Lawsuit

April 3, 2020 by Christina Gallo

Foreclosure Sign

Applying New York law, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that because a subpoena duces tecum previously issued to the insured by a post-judgment creditor of a non-insured entity was not a "claim" against the insured, the subpoena and a later-filed lawsuit against the insured could not qualify as "related claims" deemed first made when the subpoena was issued. The court also held that the "warranty exclusion" in the application for the ... Keep Reading »

Ohio Appellate Court Rejects Policyholder’s Notice-Prejudice and Continuity of Coverage Arguments

January 10, 2020 by Andrew Daechsel

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 of the policy period — to obtain coverage. When policyholders fail to do so, they often argue that the “notice-prejudice rule” should apply, such that the insurer can only deny coverage if it was prejudiced by the policyholder’s untimely notice. ... Keep Reading »

Related Decisions: Three Recent Cases Emphasize Breadth of “Related Wrongful Acts”

November 30, 2018 by Daniel G. Enriquez

Lady Justice

Third-party liability policies often include aggregation clauses. As the name suggests, these clauses aggregate "related claims" or "interrelated wrongful acts" into one claim or occurrence. This provides the parties with certainty as to when a claim was "first made" or when an occurrence "first occurred." These clauses often lead to litigation, with carriers and policyholders asserting narrow or broad readings of the language, depending on the desired result. A trio ... Keep Reading »

Six Degrees of Separation: Eleventh Circuit Upholds a Broad ‘Related Claims’ Provision

October 19, 2018 by Amanda Proctor

“Related Claims” provisions in directors and officers (D&O) and errors and omissions (E&O) policies, while common, can spawn disagreement as to scope and application. Beyond these substantive questions, an issue arises as to what information a court may consider in determining whether two or more claims are “related” within the meaning of a given policy. The Eleventh Circuit recently analyzed this issue in Health First, Inc. v. Capitol Specialty Insurance ... Keep Reading »

Defining ‘Logical Connection’: NC Federal Court Tackles ‘Related Claims’

July 6, 2018 by Daniel G. Enriquez

Insurance carriers and policyholders often argue about the scope of policy provisions. Generally, policyholders take an expansive view of insuring agreements, while carriers often construe them more narrowly. But not all coverage arguments follow these familiar lines. Take, for instance, the “related claims” debate. Most third-party liability policies contain aggregation language. Such policies deem “related claims” to be a single claim “first made” when the first ... Keep Reading »

SDNY Rules SEC Investigation Is A “Claim” Within Pending and Prior Acts Exclusion

October 27, 2017 by Alex B. Silverman

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has held that a long-running investigation by the SEC constituted a “Claim” triggering the pending and prior claims exclusion in an excess directors and officers (“D&O”) policy. See Patriarch Partners, LLC v. AXIS Ins. Co., No. 16-cv-2277 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2017). This case stems from a high-profile SEC investigation into plaintiff Patriarch Partners, LLC (“Patriarch”) relating to certain ... Keep Reading »

“Arising” tide for insurers: 11th Circuit takes expansive view of Prior Acts Exclusion

July 28, 2017 by Daniel G. Enriquez

National Bank & Trust

Claims-made policies often cover acts that occur before a policy period, so long as they result in a covered claim during the policy period. This is a fundamental difference between claims-made and occurrence policies. But the retroactive scope of a claims-made policy is not limitless. Many claims-made policies contain 'retroactive dates' that cut off an insurer's liability for occurrences before that date. Financial lines claims - as opposed to bodily injury or ... Keep Reading »

Colorado Takes A Stand Against Unauthorized Settlements

May 20, 2016 by Brooke L. French and Robert D. Helfand

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 arrive until after the policyholder has settled an underlying claim; even in those cases—and even where the policy contains a “no voluntary payments” or a “consent-to-settle” clause—dozens of cases have found that the notice-prejudice rule applies. Last ... Keep Reading »

Seeing the Finish Line: Courts Increasingly Exempt Claims-Made Policies from the Notice Prejudice Rule

May 11, 2015 by Whitney Fore

Picture of U.S. Navy Race

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 in others.  Most courts, however, also hold that the rule does not apply to late notice under a claims-made-and-reported policy, as opposed to an occurrence policy.  In 2015, several cases have solidified this trend, and some of them actually extend ... Keep Reading »

Louisiana’s Direct Action Statute Does Not Modify Terms of Coverage

August 5, 2014 by Nicholas Horan

Picture of Jail Cells

"Direct action" statutes permit an injured plaintiff to sue an insurer for coverage under someone else’s policy—the liability insurance policy of the tortfeasor who caused the injury.  They have been enacted in only a minority of states, because they abrogate the common law, which bars suits by plaintiffs who are not in privity with the insurer.  Louisiana’s statute, which dates from 1918, was one of the earliest.  It expresses the long-held policy of the Bayou State ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Connecticut Federal Court Construes Ambiguous Policy Exclusion in Favor of Coverage, but Rejects Bad Faith Claim
  • Third Circuit Holds Harassment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sexual Assault Suit Under Pennsylvania Law
  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing