Don't Hit "Snooze" on Your Notice Obligation – California Ruling Provides a Crucial Lesson for Those Purchasing "Claims-Made" Policies
Time 3 Minute Read

In Centurion Med. Liab. Protective Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Gonzalez, No. CV 17-01581 RGK (JCx), 2017 BL 392431 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2017), Centurion Medical Liability Protective Risk Retention Group sought a declaration that it owed no duty to defend a lawsuit alleging that its insureds—a group of medical practitioners—committed professional negligence during the delivery of a newborn child.  Centurion argued that it had no defense obligation because its insureds did not notify Centurion of the lawsuit within 20 days after it was filed, as required under the policy.

The Centurion policy is what is typically known as a "claims-made-and-reported" policy. Professional liability insurance policies generally fall into one of two categories: "occurrence" policies and "claims-made" policies.  "Occurrence" policies provide coverage for events that take place during a policy period even if they do not lead to lawsuits or claims until many years after the actual policy period.  However, "claims-made" policies provide coverage only for the claims or lawsuits that are actually asserted within a particular policy period, regardless of when the events that caused a claim first occurred, thus limiting the insurer's exposure to a lengthy tail of lawsuits.  "Claims-made-and-reported" policies are a subset of "claims-made" policies that also require that claims be reported to the insurer within a certain period.

In Centurion, the insureds argued that Centurion could not disclaim coverage based on late notice unless Centurion could also demonstrate that it suffered prejudice as a result of the late notice.  Nonetheless, the Central District of California held that the "notice-prejudice" rule advocated by the insureds applies only in the context of "occurrence" policies, and that insurers need not demonstrate prejudice in the context of "claims-made" policies. The court also rejected the insureds' argument that its notice was adequate because it was still given within the policy period, even if it was not within the 20-day time limit.  The court explained that California law requires strict enforcement of notice periods in these types of "claims-made" policies, and thus Centurion had no duty to defend.

Centurion should serve as an important reminder that policyholders with "claims-made" policies should make sure to give timely notice of claims, and may want to avoid purchasing such policies entirely if timely notice is likely to be a challenge. Additionally, companies that require their vendors, manufacturers, and partners to agree to purchase insurance coverage as a condition to a business engagement should consider structuring their contracts to specify that such insurance must be purchased on an "occurrence" basis.  For these business relationships, a carefully structured insurance and indemnity agreement can help avoid the costly result of a future coverage denial.

  • Partner

    Syed represents clients in connection with insurance coverage, reinsurance matters and other business litigation. Syed serves as the head of the firm’s insurance coverage practice. He has been admitted to the US Court of Appeals ...

  • Partner

    Mike is a Legal 500 and Chambers USA-ranked lawyer with more than 25 years of experience litigating insurance disputes and advising clients on insurance coverage matters.

    Mike Levine is a partner in the firm’s Washington, DC ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

While millions have been captivated by Wayfarer Studio’s production of “It Ends With Us,” a lesser-known but real-life insurance drama is unfolding off-screen. Last week, Harco National Insurance Company found itself in the spotlight when it filed a declaratory judgment action against its insureds, including, among others, Wayfarer Studios LLC, It Ends With Us Movie LLC and Justin Baldoni (jointly “Defendants”) asserting it has no obligation to defend the claims brought against Defendants by Blake Lively in Lively v. Wayfarer Studios, et al., U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:24-cv-10049-LJL (the “Underlying Action”). 

Time 4 Minute Read

A Delaware court recently held in Mattel, Inc. and Fisher Price, Inc. v. XL Insurance America, Inc., et al., that a series of product liability claims dating back to 2013 constituted a single “occurrence” under the toy manufacturer’s and distributor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policies.

The case stemmed from Mattel’s request for defense and indemnity coverage in response to claims that certain toys caused bodily injuries to infants. The CGL coverage tower, which included policies issued by multiple primary, excess, and umbrella insurers, spanned from 2011 to 2020.

Time 6 Minute Read

The recent California federal court decision Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Beachcomber Mgmt. Crystal Cove, LLC, et al. illustrates the perils that corporate policyholders may face in obtaining the full benefit of the bargain when they procure new D&O insurance after making a claim under a prior policy.  2025 WL 257599, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2025).  In Scottsdale, the court agreed that an insurer who sold a D&O policy could deny coverage for a lawsuit filed against two corporate executives during its policy period because that lawsuit involved some of the same allegations of wrongdoing as did a claim the policyholder previously submitted to a former D&O insurer.  The new policy contained a very broadly worded “prior notice exclusion” that barred coverage for all claims “in any way involving” any wrongful conduct, facts, circumstances, or situations as to which notice had been given to a prior D&O insurer.  

Time 4 Minute Read

The extent of coverage is often a function of how many occurrences (or accidents) are involved in a claim. For example, lawsuits based on product liability claims may involve a flawed manufacturing process constituting a single occurrence, or the sale of each individual product may result in hundreds of occurrences. A recent ruling involved the number of occurrences debate and resulted in the insured establishing coverage for up to $55 million instead of just $5 million in limits. 

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page