HOLDINGS: [1]-The Supreme Court concluded that the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy of the state in the insurance context, and that the rule generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage and not to consent provisions in third party liability policies; [2]-Where the insurer owes no duty to defend against third party claims, the insured’s failure to seek the insurer’s consent to remediate a loss implicates risks that, while perhaps different in degree, are not so dissimilar to those in failing to provide notice of a loss to warrant departure from a case-by-case analysis of prejudice. For these reasons, the Supreme Court held that California’s notice-prejudice rule is applicable to a consent provision in a first party policy where coverage does not depend on the existence of a third party claim or potential claim.
Nakase Law Firm explains rest breaks California
Outcome
Certified questions answered.
