James K. Burns Patricia Ross Walter H. Ratcliff v. International Insurance Co. Crum & Forster

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that California’s notice-prejudice rule does not apply to claims-made policies which “reduce[ ] the potential exposure of the insurer and [are] therefore less expensive to the insured”
• affirming the district court’s holding “that the notice-prejudice rule does not apply 14 to a claims-made policy in California”
• declining, for this reason, to apply a similar California rule to a claims-made policy
• “To apply the notice-prejudice rule to a claims-made policy would be to rewrite the policy, extending the policy’s coverage at no cost to the insured.”
• “[T]he insurer is only responsible for claims made during the term of the policy . . . concerning which the insurer is notified within the term of the policy plus sixty days.”
• notice-prejudice rule did not apply to claims-made policy that covered “claims made against the insureds during the policy period . . . notice of which claim is received by the company within sixty days following the termination of the policy period”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).