News & Insights

Recent Posts

Covid-19: Assessing the Legal Risk of Infectious Diseases

WSHB Employer Alert: FFCRA and DOL Regulations 4.2.20

Employment Practices Consultation & COVID-19

It’s a No-Win Situation: The Perils Facing Hospitals Due to the Coronavirus

COVID-19 Employer Alert: Summary of the CARES Act

COVID-19: New York Malpractice Law Alert

COVID-19 Employer Alert: Enactment of Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA)

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning to Announce the Winner of CLM's 2020 Outside Counsel Professional of the Year Award

WSHB Partner Robert Hellner Shares Mediation Tactics at CLM’s 2020 Annual Conference

Risk Transfer and Contractual Indemnification – Who Gets Left Holding the Bag?

New Developments in Challenging Certificates of Merit — Seeking Dismissal for Failure to Concurrently File Certificate with the Original Petition

Seven Habits that Define a Highly Effective Claims Team

Social Media Do's and Don'ts

Read the Room: Arguments that Work in Court but May Backfire at Mediation

WSHB Partner Kelly Waters Named to NJBIZ's 2020 Best Fifty Women in Business List

WSHB Names Andrew S. Kessler as Managing Partner of the Firm's Philadelphia Office

WSHB Employment Alert: California Law Banning Arbitration Agreements Temporarily on Hold

Sam McDermott on the Dos and Don’ts of Construction Project Termination

Full Disclosure! Insurer Beware: Colorado’s New Automobile Policy Disclosure Law Has Teeth!

Andrew S. Kessler Named Legal Counsel for Northeast Community Center for Behavioral Health

WSHB Elevates Ten Partners to Defined Equity Status

Eleven WSHB Attorneys Elected Into Partnership

Eighteen Attorneys Elected to WSHB Senior Counsel

Supreme Court Allows Suit Over Website Accessibility

Strategies for Defending Legionella and Mold Claims

Residential Revolution

Time Limit Demand Issues Arrive in North Carolina

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Julie A. Weerth to the Firm's New York Office

Temp Agency Absolved of Liability in Hotly Contested Action

Alternative Fee Agreements and Construction Issues: Oil and Water or Perfect Pairing!?

WSHB's Graham Miller Helps Demystify Construction Claims in the Pacific Northwest

WSHB Partner Janice Michaels Named to The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 List

One Bad Apple: Navigating through Sexual Battery and other Intentional Torts

Leading Construction Litigator Cynthia Tari Joins WSHB's Dallas Office

WSHB’s Philadelphia Partner Secures Summary Judgment in Catastrophic Premises Liability Matter

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Andrew Kessler

New Bill In New York Proposed for Signature by Governor Andrew Cuomo is Set To Make Employers "SWEAT"

Renowned Litigator Jason Williams Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Litigator Richard Young Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Published Appellate Opinion Upholding Summary Judgment in Favor of Commercial Tenant Against $3.5M Subrogation Suit

17 WSHB Lawyers Honored as 2019's Rising Stars

Arizona Supreme Court Allows Court of Appeals Decision Expanding Defendants' Ability to Enforce Settlements to Stand

WSHB’s Jason Klein Breaks Down the Good, the Sad and the Funny Sides of Claims

Litigating Sexual Battery and Other Intentional Torts: Navigating the One Bad Apple in Medical Negligence

WSHB Partner Michelle Arbitrio to Moderate Panel on Insurance and Risk Management in the Age of Mass Shootings

Girl on Fire: The Price of Pursuing the Truth in the #MeToo World

Pragmatic Issues on Settlement Versus Trial for Legal Malpractice Cases

WSHB Partner Jade Tran Named to Lawyers of Color's "Nation's Best" List

A Withering Assault

The Natural Progression of Natural Disasters

Nevada’s Governor Signs Chapter 40 Reform Bill

WA Condo Law Changes Hope to Curtail Frivolous Defect Lawsuits and Stimulate Production

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning Steps Into the Spotlight at this Year's West Coast Casualty Seminar

Professional Liability Expert Weighs In On Protecting Your Practice From Opioid Doc Arrest Fallout

Penalties, Punitives, and Granny Cams: The Escalating Lure of Elder Abuse Litigation

Are Structured Settlements Still Relevant

Game Changing Trends Affecting Construction

He's Not My Guy: The Joint-Employer Doctrine

WSHB Case Update: DOL Proposes Increase to Minimum Salary Threshold

WSHB and DWF Announce Exclusive Association

North Carolina State Court in Uncharted Territory in Finding Covid-19 Business Interruption Coverage

WSHB Cyber Team Obtains Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action

Governor Newsom Signs Wildfire Legislation to Protect California Consumers and DOI Urges Carriers to Cover Wildfire Property Losses

WSHB Expands Geographic Footprint

WSHB Case Update: Claims-Made Insurance Policies Interpreted by Colorado Supreme Court

February 25, 2015

The Colorado Supreme Court Has Ruled that Claims-Made Deadlines in Colorado Insurance Policies Will Be Strictly Enforced and Are Not Subject to a Prejudice Analysis

On February 17, 2015, in the case of Craft v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, the Colorado Supreme Court resolved an unanswered question of insurance coverage which affects all claims-made insurance policies. The Court held that insurance companies need not demonstrate that they are prejudiced before denying coverage under a claims-made liability insurance policy where the insured does not give timely notice within the claims-made period provided for in the policy.


This case comes down from Colorado’s highest court and answers the previously unresolved question in Colorado as to whether prejudice has to be shown before an insurance company could deny coverage under a claims-made insurance policy where the insured fails to give timely notice by a date-certain contained in the policy. This case stands for the proposition that Colorado courts will strictly construe the claims-made periods contained in insurance policies. Colorado courts will not provide insured parties with any leeway in that regard, even if the insured party can show that the insurer has not been prejudiced by claims being made after the deadline provided in the policy.

This decision means that insureds must be exceedingly diligent in being aware of, and complying with, claims-made deadlines contained in their insurance policies. As a practice pointer, insured parties should err on the side of giving notice, even of potential claims, within the claims-made reporting period to ensure timely claims are made.


Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company issued a claims-made policy for a corporation’s directors and officers liability coverage. The policy required the insured to provide written notice of claim “as soon as practicable” after becoming aware of a claim, but “not later than 60 days” after the policy period expired.

Near the end of the one-year policy period Craft, an officer of the company who was covered by the policy, was sued by a third party. Craft, unaware of the policy, defended himself against the suit. Approximately sixteen months after the policy period expired, Craft learned of the policy and immediately contacted the insurer to seek coverage, without response. Craft then settled the case out of court. Months later, the insurer responded to inquiries from Craft’s attorney, indicating only that certain policy exclusions applied to Craft’s claim.

Craft then sued the insurer in state court for denying him coverage, and the insurer removed the case to the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado. Once there, the insurer filed a Motion to Dismiss the case on grounds that Craft gave untimely notice. The Federal District Court granted that motion. Craft appealed that dismissal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that the notice-prejudice rule should be applied to his insurance claim.

Under the notice-prejudice rule, an insured who gives late notice of a claim to his or her insurer does not lose coverage benefits unless the insurer proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the late notice prejudiced its interests. Prompt notice serves to give an insurance company an opportunity to investigate or defend the insured’s claim and to receive the insured’s cooperation in the process of gathering information, negotiating settlement, securing and giving evidence, attending hearings and trials, and assisting witnesses to attend hearings and trials. If these interests are defeated because an insured fails to give prompt-notice, an insurer suffers prejudice.

The Colorado Supreme Court has applied the notice-prejudice rule in the context of occurrence policies in the past where an insured failed to give prompt-notice under the terms of a liability policy (e.g., provide notice “as soon as practicable”), but prior to this case, the Colorado Supreme Court had not addressed whether the notice-prejudice rule applied to claims-made policies or date-certain notice requirements (e.g., provide notice “not later than 60 days” after expiration of the policy period). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals sent a formal request to the Colorado Supreme Court to answer the narrow question of whether the notice-prejudice rule applies to a date-certain notice requirement in a claims-made insurance policy in Colorado.


The Colorado Supreme Court held that the notice-prejudice rule does not apply to a date-certain notice requirement in a claims-made insurance policy. The Supreme Court based that decision on the fact that a date-certain notice requirement serves only to define the boundaries of a policy’s basic coverage terms; extending the notice-prejudice rule to a date-certain notice requirement would defeat the fundamental concept on which coverage is premised.

The Supreme Court did not rule on whether the notice-prejudice rule applies to prompt-notice requirements in claims-made policies, but it demonstrated favor for the notice-prejudice rule, generally, in the context of a prompt-notice requirement.


Privacy Policy      |      Site Map

© 2020 Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required