Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• distinguishing Clarendon because there the insurer “proved actual prejudice in that it lost the opportunity to settle the case for an amount within the insured’s self-insured retention”
• “Because an insurer’s duty to defend is triggered by notice, the insurer has no duty to reimburse the insured for defense costs incurred before the insured gave the insurer notice of the lawsuit.”
• delayed notice to insurer of suit until less than a month before trial did not prejudice insurer where it learned of suit while defense and negotiations were still ongoing, insurer was provided access to litigation file, and insxrrer was invited to participate in settlement discussions
• “Hernandez was expressly based on the fundamental principle of contract law that a material breach by one contracting party excuses performance by the other party, and an immaterial breach does not. . . . This principle is not limited to uninsured motorist policies.”
• “[T]he insured’s breach of a notice provision is material when the insurer has sustained ‘actual’ prejudice. The requirement of ‘actual prejudice’ means that the insurer may not disclaim coverage on the basis of prejudice that is only theoretical or presumed merely from the length of delay.”
• collecting cases and other authority

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).