Eighth Circuit Finds Notice Within Policy Period Still Violated Claims Made Policy’s Notice Provision

Cozen O'Connor
Contact

Cozen O'Connor

On May 25, 2017, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its decision in Food Market Merchandising Inc. v. Scottsdale Indemnity Co. The decision is noteworthy because the court joined a limited number of other courts that have held that when an insured fails to provide notice “as soon as practicable” as required under a “claims made” insurance policy, the insurer may avoid coverage even when the notice was given within the policy period, and without the insurer needing to demonstrate prejudice.

The insured, Food Market, had been sued in January 2014 by a salesperson for more than $250,000 in allegedly unpaid commissions. Food Market provided notice of this suit to its insurer, Scottsdale, in August 2014, within the policy period. Scottsdale denied coverage on the ground of untimely notice.

The Eighth Circuit held that the insured’s provision of notice within the policy period did not save coverage, explaining: “Here, the policy did not require notice to be given during the policy period, but instead only required that notice be given as soon as practicable, but in no event later than sixty (60) days after the end of the policy period.” The court continued: “Food Market presented no evidence that providing notice over seven months after being sued was as soon as practicable.”

Nor was Scottsdale required to show prejudice. The court (and evidently the parties) acknowledged that the policy made compliance with the “as soon as practicable” notice provision a condition precedent to coverage, which made prejudice unnecessary.

In so concluding, the decision places Minnesota alongside courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Connecticut that likewise afford to the insurer solid grounds for an “untimely notice” defense, even when notice was given within the policy period. The insurer’s position arguably is strongest when the policy expressly states that notice “as soon as practicable” is a condition precedent to coverage. However, even when such language is absent, an insurer may validly contend “claims made” policies implicitly make timely notice a condition precedent to coverage.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Cozen O'Connor | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Cozen O'Connor
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Cozen O'Connor on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide