Opinion

State ex rel. Division of Administration, Office of Risk Management v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.

  • 2010 La.App. 1 Cir. 0689
  • 56 So. 3d 1236
  • 2011 La. App. LEXIS 176
  • 2011 WL 522061
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Filed
Feb 11, 2011
Status
Published
Author
Welch
On the bench
Carter, Gaidry, Welch
Cited by
25 cases

"The function of the notice requirements is simply to prevent the insurer from being prejudiced, not to provide a technical escape-hatch by which to deny coverage in the absence of prejudice nor to evade the fundamental protective purpose of the insurance contract...."

How later courts described this case

  • "The function of the notice requirements is simply to prevent the insurer from being prejudiced, not to provide a technical escape-hatch by which to deny coverage in the absence of prejudice nor to evade the fundamental protective purpose of the insurance contract...."

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

WELCH, J.

Concurs in Part and Dissents in Part.

|XI concur in the opinion to the extent that it reverses the granting of the State’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. However, I dissent from that portion of the opinion affirming the denial of National Union’s motion for summary judgment.

First, I disagree with the finding that notice to Aon met the notice requirements of the excess policy of insurance. The notice provisions of the ORM policy, expressly incorporated into the National Union policy, clearly placed a duty on the State to notify National Union of the Odom claim and lawsuit. I do not believe that the narrative description of Aon’s claims handling procedures set forth in the bid proposal obviated this basic contractual obligation.

Secondly, I disagree with the finding that there is a genuine dispute on the issue of whether the State’s late notice of the claim was prejudicial to National Union. In my opinion, a case of actual prejudice simply could not be more clear. Because National Union was not notified of the Odom claim until after judgment had been rendered in the lawsuit, National Union was deprived of its ability to conduct an investigation of the underlying facts, to defend itself and its insured against the claim, and to participate in settlement negotiations and the trial of the matter.

I find that under the undisputed facts of this case, the State’s failure to notify National Union of the Odom lawsuit until after judgment had been rendered following a full trial on the merits constituted actual prejudice relieving National |9Union of liability under the excess policy. Therefore, I would reverse the trial court’s judgment and render summary judgment in favor of National Union on the liability issue.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.