Jennifer Van Voorhis | Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog | September 30, 2017<\/p>\n
Contrary to most New York policies which require notice to be given \u201cpromptly\u201d, Connecticut policies tend to require notice \u201cas soon as practical.\u201d<\/p>\n
Prior to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in\u00a0Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. King<\/em>,1<\/sup>Connecticut law held that an insurer could be entirely discharged from its duty regarding liability on an insurance contract when the insured failed to provide proper notification of a loss, and the delay was either unexcused or unreasonable. Contrary to New York, which does not care if the insurer is prejudiced by the delay, Connecticut would allow the case to proceed if the insured could show the insurer was not prejudiced by the delay of notice. The insurer had a continuing duty to provide coverage absent a showing of \u201cmaterial prejudice,\u201d even if the literal terms of the notice provision were not met.\u201d2<\/sup>\u00a0The burden of establishing timely notice or lack of delay was on the insured.<\/p>\n The Second Circuit Court of Appeals asked the Connecticut Supreme Court to address the questions regarding fact circumstances that can be considered in determining whether there has been compliance with the duty to notify an insurer of an incident\/accident for which coverage is claimed.<\/p>\n