Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Craft v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co.green2 sentences2024As a result, "to excuse late notice in violation of such a requirement would rewrite a fundamental term of the insurance contract." Id. ¶27 In so stating, we reiterated that Friedland did not concern a claims-made policy, and we opined that the public policy reasons for applying the notice-prejudice rule to the policy at issue in that case did not apply to the date-certain notice requirement of a claims-made policy. 2024We ultimately held that "the notice-prejudice rule does not apply to a date-certain notice requirement in a claims-made insurance policy" because in such a policy, "the date-certain notice requirement defines the scope of coverage." Craft , ¶ 7 , 343 P.3d at 953 . | 3 | 3 |
Friedland v. Travelers Indemnity Co.green2 sentences2016This is precisely the interest of the insurer that we recognized is served by the prompt notice provision at issue in Friedland . 105 P.3d at 643–44, 648–49. ¶30 In my view, the majority’s attempt to equate the no-voluntary-payments provision at issue with the date-certain notice requirement of the claims-made policy in Craft is unpersuasive. 2016This is precisely the interest of the insurer that we recognized is served by the prompt notice provision at issue in Friedland. 105 P.3d at 643-44, 648-49 . 30 In my view, the majority's attempt to equate the no-voluntary-payments provision at issue with the date-certain notice requirement of the claims-made policy in Croft is unpersuasive. | 1 | 2 |
Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. Stresscon Corp.green1 sentence2024See id. at ¶¶ 28–32 , 343 P.3d at 957–58 . ¶28 Finally, in Stresscon , ¶ 2 , 370 P.3d at 141 , we considered whether our notice-prejudice reasoning in Friedland applied to an insured’s voluntary payments made in contravention of a no-voluntary payments clause in an insurance policy, and we concluded that it did not. | 1 | 1 |
A-18-14 Templo Fuente De Vida Corp v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburghgreen1 sentence2016Co. of Pittsburgh, 129 A.3d 1069, 1077 (N.J. 2016) (“In the ‘occurrence’ policy, notice provisions are written ‘to aid the insurance carrier in investigating, settling, and defending claims.’ ‘Claims made’ policies commonly require that the claim be made and reported within the policy period, thereby providing a fixed date after which the insurance company will not be subject to liability under the policy.”) (citation omitted). 9 ¶ 20 Recently, the supreme court refused to apply the notice-prejudice rule to a policy provision prohibiting the insured from making voluntary payments on, or settli | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Lincoln General Insurance Co.green1 sentence2015See Bailey, 255 P.3d at 1053-54 (discussing the doctrine of reasonable expectations); see also 7 Steven Plitt, Daniel Maldonado & Joshua D. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Craft v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance
green
2 sentences2015As the Tenth Circuit noted, "extending the insured's coverage without compensating the insurer would allow the insured to reap the windfall." Id. (emphasis added). 2015Cognizant of these competing effects on the overall compensation of tort victims, we agree with the Tenth Circuit that applying the notice-prejudice rule to the date-certain notice requirement of claims-made policies could be a "double-edged sword." Craft, 560 Fed.Appx. at 714 . 145 Importantly, strict enforcement of a date-certain notice requirement does not result in a windfall for the insurer based on a technicality. | 1 | 2015–2015 |