United States: California Supreme Court: Notice-Prejudice Rule In First-Party Insurance Contract Is A Fundamental Public Policy That Can Trump A Choice-Of-Law Provision

Last Updated: September 9 2019
Article by Aidan McCormack and Cyril Smith

In a significant decision last week, the Supreme Court of California broadened the reach of the notice-prejudice rule and applied it, as a matter of fundamental public policy, to override a choice-of-law provision in a first-party pollution insurance policy. In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., Case No. S239510, 2019 WL 4065521 (Cal. Aug. 29, 2019), Pitzer College (Pitzer), as part of The Claremont University Consortium, was covered under a pollution insurance policy issued by Indian Harbor.

The Indian Harbor policy “covered Pitzer for legal and remediation expenses resulting from pollution conditions discovered during the policy period of July 23, 2010 to July 23, 2011.” Id. It contained provisions requiring Pitzer to (1) provide written notice of any pollution condition as soon as practicable and (2) “obtain Indian Harbor’s written consent before incurring expenses, making payments, assuming obligations, and/or commencing remediation due to a pollution condition.” Id. However, the policy also allowed for an emergency exception to the consent provision if Pitzer incurred costs “on an emergency basis where any delay ... would cause injury to persons or damage to property or increase significantly the cost of responding to any [pollution condition].” Where the emergency exception applies, Pitzer is still required to notify Indian Harbor “immediately thereafter.”Id. Finally, the policy contained a choice-of-law provision in favor of New York.

Pitzer sought coverage from Indian Harbor for costs and expenses incurred in remediating contaminated soil it discovered on January 10, 2011, during the construction of a new on-campus dormitory. That day, Pitzer determined that remediation would be required given the need to complete the dormitory for the start of the 2012-2013 school year. Pitzer conferred with environmental consultants, who concluded that the least expensive and best option was to remove the soil onsite through a transportable treatment unit. Id. at *2. Remediation work began on March 9, 2011, and was completed a month later for nearly $2 million. Pitzer did not obtain Indian Harbor’s consent before commencing remediation and incurring remediation costs. Id. In fact, “Pitzer did not inform Indian Harbor of the remediation until July 11, 2011, approximately three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” Id.

On March 16, 2012, Indian Harbor denied coverage due to Pitzer’s breach of the notice conditions and failure to obtain Indian Harbor’s consent before commencing remediation and incurring remediation costs. Pitzer then sued Indian Harbor in California state court, the case was removed to federal court, and Indian Harbor moved for summary judgment. The district court ruled in favor of Indian Harbor, holding that New York law applied based on the choice-of-law provision and that “although a state’s fundamental policy can override a choice-of-law provision, Pitzer had ‘failed to establish’ that California’s notice-prejudice rule is such a policy.” Id. Applying New York law, the district court granted Indian Harbor summary judgment based on Pitzer’s late notice, although it noted in passing that Indian Harbor would not have prevailed if it had to show prejudice. Id. The district court also ruled that Pitzer breached the consent provisions and that, even if the emergency exception applied, Pitzer still failed to provide the required notice “immediately thereafter.” Id. at *3.

Pitzer appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which certified to the Supreme Court of California the question of whether the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy, and if so, then “the appeal then turns on whether, in a first party policy like Pitzer’s, a consent provision operates as a notice requirement subject to the notice-prejudice rule.” Id>. In answering the certified question, the California Supreme Court first considered whether the choice-of-law provision in the Indian Harbor insurance contract was enforceable. It stated that such a provision is generally enforceable unless “it conflicts with a state’s fundamental public policy, and (2) that state has a materially greater interest in the determination of the issue than the contractually chosen state.”Id. The court explained that “[i]f there is no such conflict, the court shall enforce the parties’ choice of law. If, however, there is a fundamental conflict with California law, the court must then determine whether California has a ‘materially greater interest than the chosen state in the determination of the particular issue. ...’” Id. It found that the choice-of-law provision was enforceable because “the parties agree with the district court’s finding that there is at least a “reasonable basis” for the selection of New York law.” Id.

Next, the court considered the issue of whether the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy. It explained the notice-prejudice rule as follows:

California’s notice-prejudice rule requires an insurer to prove that the insured’s late notice of a claim has substantially prejudiced its ability to investigate and negotiate payment for the insured’s claim. A finding of substantial prejudice will generally excuse the insurer from its contractual obligations under the insurance policy, unless the insurer had actual or constructive knowledge of the claim. Id. at *3.

The court noted that the notice-prejudice rule has not been referred to a “fundamental rule of public policy,” but has been referred to as “the public policy of this state, favoring compensation of insureds over technical forfeiture.” Id. at *4. It also stated that “when our goal is to protect those with inferior bargaining power in the insurance context … the notice-prejudice rule may be considered fundamental because it is connected to concerns of fundamental fairness in the negotiation process.” Id. It then explained the various reasons for construing the notice-prejudice rule as a fundamental public policy.

First, the court stated that the notice-prejudice rule “cannot be contractually waived and, thus, restricts freedom of contract.” Id. As such, it “overrides the parties’ express intentions for a defined notice term” and prevents a technical forfeiture of coverage unless the insurer can show prejudice. Id. Second, the court found that “the notice-prejudice rule protects insureds against inequitable results that are generated by insurers’ superior bargaining power.” Id. at *5. Citing to the Restatement of Contracts, the court stated that “policies ‘designed to protect a person against the oppressive use of superior bargaining power’ may be considered fundamental and unwaivable.” Id Third, the court found that the “notice-prejudice rule promotes objectives that are in the general public’s interest because it protects the public from bearing the costs of harm that an insurance policy purports to cover.” Id.

Rejecting the argument that the notice-prejudice rule is not a fundamental policy, the court stated that the fundamental public policy is meant to prevent “a windfall redounding to the benefit of the insurer, the party with superior bargaining power” and noted that “courts already decline to enforce contractual provisions that they consider to be contrary to state public interests.” Id. It expressly found that the “notice-prejudice rule, by contrast, overrides a contractual term, and is expressly “designed to restrict freedom of contract.” Id. at *6. Thus, it concluded that “California’s notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy of California,” “is based on the rationale that the essential part of the contract is insurance coverage, not the procedure for determining liability, and “ the notice requirement serves to protect insurers from prejudice, ... not ... to shield them from their contractual obligations’ through ‘a technical escape-hatch.’” Id.

Next, the court considered “whether the notice-prejudice rule should be extended to a consent provision in the context of first party coverage.” Id. at *8. It found that because “there is no claim of liability for the insurer to defend and hence no logical need for it to retain unimpaired control over the claims handling,” the “failure to obtain consent in the first party context is not inherently prejudicial, and the usual logic of the notice-prejudice rule should control, in the absence of a coverage requirement for a third party claim or potential claim.” Id. It 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.” That said, because Pitzer and Indian Harbor disagreed as to whether the policy provided a first or third-party coverage, the court left the specific question of whether the notice-prejudice rule applies to the consent provision in the policy to the Ninth Circuit. Id.

We highlight the Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., decision because it holds, in the first-party pollution coverage context, that the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy in California that can override a choice-of-law forum in a pollution insurance contract in certain circumstances.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions