{"id":9809,"date":"2019-08-16T15:16:01","date_gmt":"2019-08-16T15:16:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.steinberglawfirm.com\/?p=9809"},"modified":"2019-08-16T15:17:19","modified_gmt":"2019-08-16T15:17:19","slug":"clausulas-de-notificacion-en-las-polizas-de-seguros-decision-de-los-tribunales-supremos-de-carolina-del-sur-y-casos-de-defectos-de-construccion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.steinberglawfirm.com\/es\/blog\/notice-clauses-in-insurance-policies-the-south-carolina-supreme-courts-neumayer-decision-and-construction-defect-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"Las cl\u00e1usulas de notificaci\u00f3n en las p\u00f3lizas de seguros, la decisi\u00f3n Neumayer del Tribunal Supremo y los casos de defectos de construcci\u00f3n"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In its <em>Neumayer<\/em>\nopinion issued at the end of July, the South Carolina Supreme Court resolved an\nissue specific to an automobile liability insurance policy but in doing so,\nalluded to implications for the commercial general liability insurance policies\nthat typically are the applicable insurance coverage in construction defect\ncases.<a href=\"#_ftn1\">[1]<\/a>&nbsp; The issue in the <em>Neumayer<\/em> decision was whether a South Carolina statute governing\nautomobile insurance policies barred the application of a notice clause in an automobile\ninsurance policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The policy had a typical notice and cooperation provision\nwhich required the insured to give the insurer prompt notice of an accident and\nto immediately send the insurer copies of any legal papers.&nbsp; The statute at issue provides that any policy\nendorsement or rider that purports to limit the automobile insurance coverage\nrequired by the statute is void.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiff, the injured party, sued the insured, the\ninsured did not answer, and the plaintiff had a default judgment entered\nagainst the insured.&nbsp; The insurer did not\nreceive notice that its insured was involved in a lawsuit until 18 months after\nthe entry of default.&nbsp; The plaintiff\nsought to collect the full amount of the default judgment from the insurer, and\nthe insurer refused to pay on the basis that the insured had not complied with\nthe notice clause in the policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The parties proceeded to a declaratory judgment action as to\ncoverage and the insurer\u2019s obligation to pay the judgment, and the trial court\nruled in favor of the injured party.&nbsp; The\ntrial court reasoned that the insurer was obligated to pay the full amount of\nthe default judgment because the statute rendered the notice provision void.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The precise issue in the case was a narrow one as to the\nimpact of an automobile insurance statute on an automobile insurance\npolicy.&nbsp; However, to reach the opinion\u2019s\nresult, Justice Hearn, writing for a unanimous Court, started from the wide\nlens of liability insurance notice provisions generally.&nbsp; The Court noted that \u201c[n]early every\ninsurance policy contains a provision requiring the insured to timely notify\nits insurer when a lawsuit is filed against the insured.\u201d&nbsp; The Court recognized that allowing insurers\nto escape coverage due to an insured\u2019s failure to provide notice a suit creates\ninequities, and as a result, South Carolina law provides an insurer can only\navoid coverage where both the insured failed to provide notice and the insurer\nwas substantially prejudiced by the lack of notice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court ultimately held the automobile insurance statute\ndid not bar the application of the policy\u2019s notice clause, but of more interest\nto the world of construction law, the Court reaffirmed the \u201cnotice-prejudice\nrule\u201d and implied that an insurer cannot be prejudiced where the insurer received\nactual notice of a suit even if the notice received did not technically comply\nwith a notice clause.&nbsp; Specifically, the\nCourt noted how a notice clause cannot provide \u201ca \u2018technical escape hatch\u2019 for\nthe insurer to deny coverage,\u201d and the notice-prejudice rule serves to dispense\nwith technicalities and balance the equities of the insurer\u2019s need for notice\nwith the right of \u201can innocent third-party [to recover] benefits to which he\nwould otherwise be entitled.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The key takeaway for construction defect cases is the\ndecision reiterates the need for a homeowner or homeowner\u2019s association\nplaintiff and a general contractor defendant to get notice of a lawsuit to the\ninsurers for all of the implicated parties.&nbsp;\nDoing so should help defend against insurers later seeking to avoid\nliability through a policy\u2019s notice clause.&nbsp;\nUnder the notice-prejudice rule, an insurer will have a hard time\ndenying coverage on the basis of a failure to comply with the notice provision\nwhen the insurer had actual notice of the lawsuit sent to it by a party in the\nsuit.<br><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"#_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a> <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.sccourts.org\/opinions\/advSheets\/no302019.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Neumayer v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co.<\/a><\/em>, Op. No. 27902 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed July 24, 2019) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 30 at 22).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In its Neumayer opinion issued at the end of July, the South Carolina Supreme Court resolved an issue specific to an automobile liability insurance policy but in doing so, alluded to implications for the commercial general liability insurance policies that typically are the applicable insurance coverage in construction defect cases.[1]&nbsp; The issue in the Neumayer&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[289],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9809","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-construction-defect-case-law"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.steinberglawfirm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9809","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.steinberglawfirm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.steinberglawfirm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.steinberglawfirm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.steinberglawfirm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9809"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.steinberglawfirm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9809\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.steinberglawfirm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9809"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.steinberglawfirm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9809"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.steinberglawfirm.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9809"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}