Opinion ID: 3066755
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Furnival’s attempt to renew the Policy under

Text: the same terms and conditions as the expiring Policy is without force and effect. Furnival filed a counterclaim for breach of contract, and eventually moved for summary judgment. The District Court denied Furnival’s motion. Indian Harbor argued, as it does here, that state law permits an insurance company to renew a policy with different terms than the original policy if notice of the changes is given. The District Court reasoned that Furnival “inadvertently acknowledged” that the “general rule of ‘same terms and 6 conditions as contained in the original policy,’” contains an “‘unless otherwise expressed’ exception.” 2 Accordingly, as Indian Harbor undisputedly gave notice of its intent to change the policy, the court held that Indian Harbor satisfied its obligation to renew.