Opinion ID: 1474342
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: HCC's Original Opposition

Text: HCC responded to London's contention that the claims-made policy language was unambiguous. It argued that the policies provided alternative trigger mechanisms which permitted HCC to notify London of  potential claims, and thereby extend the time period under which claims can be brought against HCC and still trigger the policy. [3] (emphasis added). In opposing London's suggested interpretation of the policy language, HCC cited two provisions in the insurance agreements. The first provision HCC cited is Insuring Agreement 5 and is designated the Loss Notification Option (LNO): The Insured may notify a Loss to this Policy by sending a notice of such Loss, in writing, by registered or certified mail during the period of this Policy, to the entity designated in Item 7 of the Declarations, provided: (1) the Loss being notified is a Loss for which a claim or claims have already been made, in writing, against the Insured, and (2) the Loss is such that is likely to involve this Policy, and (3) the Loss has not previously been notified as a Circumstance under this Policy or any prior policy. In the event the Insured so notifies the Loss to this Policy then any claim which is made, in writing, against the Insured, as respects such Loss within [seven] years after the applicable date shown below shall be deemed to have been first made, in writing, against the Insured on such date. (emphasis added). [4] The second provision that HCC cited in support of its argument for an alternative trigger mechanism was Insuring Agreement 4, the Notice of Circumstance (NOC) provision: Whenever the Insured has information relating to a Circumstance which is likely to involve this Policy and gives notice of such Circumstance, in writing, sent by registered or certified mail during the period of this Policy, to Underwriters' representative, as set forth in the entity designated in Item 7 of the Declarations, then any claim, as respects such Circumstance, which is made, in writing, against the Insured within [seven] years from the date of the written notification of such Circumstance, to Underwriters' representative, shall be deemed to have been first made, in writing, against the Insured on the date upon which the notice of the said Circumstance was first sent to Underwriters' representative, in writing. (emphasis added). [5] HCC also presented an opposing affidavit which referred to the enhancement provisions and included the testimony of Geoffrey A. Harrison, one of the drafters of London's claims-made policy form. According to HCC, this evidence confirmed that provisions like the NOC modify the claims first made in writing triggering mechanism. As noted in Mr. Harrison's testimony: [W]ith the claims made policy  claims made against the insured policy  the trigger of coverage is when the claim is made against the insured for that claim, other than various things like notice of circumstance, maybe discovery and one or two other things, which would interfere with it. (emphasis added). Thus, HCC's answer to London's original motion in the Superior Court contended that the policies at issue are not pure claims-made policies. In support of its position, HCC cited the LNO and NOC provisions in the policies, which provided for seven additional years of insurance coverage. According to HCC, those LNO and NOC citations were a sufficient response to London's original motion, which only relied upon Insuring Agreement 1 for its proposition that the claims-made policies were unambiguous. HCC contended that the citations were sufficient to preclude the entry of summary judgment in London's favor.