Illinois Supreme Court: Insurers Need Not Prove Prejudice To Prevail On Late Notice
Country Mutual Ins. Co. v. Livorsi Marine, Inc. , 2006 WL 1348722 (Ill. May 18, 2006) makes no sense to me. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's holding that an insurer is not required to prove prejudice as a condition of refusing coverage under an occurrence policy's late notice provision. As a justification, the Supreme Court cited Illinois precedent, but totally whiffed on trying to come up with a better reason for such a rule.
Probably the least persuasive part of the opinion was the attempt to show the difference between Illinois' requirement of prejudice for an insured's breach of a policy's cooperation clause, and the lack of a prejudice rule for late notice. In my opinion, there really isn't a reason for a prejudice rule in one instance but not the other. It's mystifying. Maybe some of you folks in Illinois and elsewhere can make better sense of this than I can.
Courts continue to struggle with claims where the policyholder may not have provided notice as soon as one might have liked, and the coverage litigation typically centers on whether the dispositive argument is “no harm, no foul” -- that is,...
Sorry, those of us in Illinois have long ago given up trying to make sense of our Court. Your guess is as good as mine...or the guy on the next barstool over for that matter.