Court Cases that Demonstrate Late Reporting Kills Claims Made Coverage
In the world of professional liability insurance, few issues create more costly surprises than late claim reporting under a claims‑made or claims‑made‑and‑reported policy. Whether you’re a law firm, financial professional, healthcare provider, or corporate entity, one principle is universal:
If the claim isn’t reported within the policy’s reporting window, coverage vanishes—no matter how valid the claim may be. If in doubt report.
Below are examples that illustrate, how strictly courts enforce reporting deadlines.
Kentucky State University v. Darwin National Assurance Co. (Ky. 2023)
In this case, Kentucky State University received notice of EEOC discrimination charges in June 2015. But the university failed to report the claims until three days after the 90‑day extended reporting period expired.
The insurer denied coverage, and the dispute ultimately reached the Kentucky Supreme Court.
What the Court Held
The court ruled that the notice‑prejudice rule does not apply to claims‑made‑and‑reported policies, meaning an insurer doesn’t need to show prejudice from late reporting. Missing the deadline was enough to void coverage. [irmi.com]
The reporting deadline is part of the coverage itself—not a technicality.
If the deadline is missed, coverage disappears.
President & Fellows of Harvard College v. Zurich American Insurance Co. (1st Cir. 2023)
Harvard faced a high‑profile discrimination lawsuit during the policy period. But the university didn’t report the lawsuit to its excess carrier until May 23, 2017—long after the reporting window ended on January 30, 2016.
What the Court Held
The First Circuit enforced the reporting requirement strictly and affirmed the insurer’s denial of coverage.
Importantly, the court reiterated that under Massachusetts law, claims‑made‑and‑reported policies do not require prejudice for a late‑notice denial. [executives…ryblog.com]
Even though the claim was publicized in news coverage, the court rejected arguments that the insurer had “actual knowledge.”
Actual knowledge is not a substitute for contractually required notice.
First Circuit Affirms Denial Under Zurich Excess Policy (Harvard Case, 2023)
In another aspect of Harvard’s insurance tower, the university provided timely notice to the primary insurer—but never notified Zurich, the excess insurer, until years later.
What the Court Held
The First Circuit again ruled for the insurer, stating that:
-
- Notice to one carrier does not constitute notice to another.
- Actual knowledge can’t be used as a workaround.
- The insured forfeits coverage by missing the notice requirement. [cozen.com]
This case is an excellent example for reporting with layered programs—each carrier must receive notice consistent with its own policy terms.
Geneva Rock Prods., Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp. (D. Utah 2025)
Two former employees filed discrimination charges during the policy period, but the insured didn’t notify the carrier until more than 2½ years after the policy expired.
What the Court Held
Under Utah law, claims‑made policies are explicitly exempt from the notice‑prejudice rule. Late notice alone allowed the insurer to deny coverage, even without demonstrating prejudice. [marketscreener.com]
This case is example showing certain states codify the distinction between occurrence and claims‑made policies—and courts enforce it.
L. Squared Industries, Inc. v. Nautilus Insurance Co. (11th Cir. 2025)
The policyholder failed to provide timely notice under a claims‑made policy.
What the Court Held
The Eleventh Circuit confirmed that the insured’s failure to meet the notice requirement barred coverage. The insurer did not need to prove prejudice. [jdsupra.com]
Even in jurisdictions with consumer‑friendly notice‑prejudice standards, claims‑made policies remain the exception—deadlines matter.
Key Points to Remember
- Claims‑made reporting deadlines are absolute-Courts treat timely notice as a condition precedent to coverage.
- Prejudice doesn’t matter-The insurer doesn’t have to show harm from late notice.
- ERPs (Extended Reporting Period Endorsement/Tail Coverage) are misunderstood-They extend reporting for newly discovered claims, not for claims known but unreported during the policy term.
- Actual knowledge by the insurer is relevant-Publicity, news coverage, or notice to another carrier doesn’t count.
- A single missed deadline can erase hundreds of thousands—or millions—of dollars in protection.
If in doubt report the matter per the policy terms and conditions.
Contact Me Today
Lee Norcross, MBA, CPCU
California License # 0D87292
L Squared Insurance Agency, LLC ® DBA in California as L2 L Squared Insurance Agency, License # 0L93416
Managing Director, CEO
Lee@L2Ins.com
616-726-7080
