California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Venoco, Inc. v. Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co., 175 Cal.App.4th 750, 96 Cal. Rptr. 3d 409 (Cal. App. 2009):
Moreover, circumstances here are not comparable to those where insureds were late in filing claims that otherwise met the coverage elements. The prejudice requirement prevents the insured forfeiting an otherwise valid claim. By contrast, compliance with the reporting requirement here is "an element of coverage." (Helfand v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at p. 888.) The issue is whether the insured met the basic coverage requirements. (Ibid.) Applying a proof of prejudice requirement would both alter the coverage elements and be unfair to the insurer because it "would materially alter the insurer's risk." (Ibid.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.