Opinion ID: 3066755
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Furthermore, the INSURED and the

Text: Company agree that the Company may refuse to offer a renewal extension of coverage to the INSURED for the following reason: 4 In 2001, Furnival paid Indian Harbor a $520,498 premium for the Policy and accompanying Endorsements. In June 2006, the parties modified the contract to include Endorsement No. 23, which increased the Policy’s limit from $10 million to $14 million for an additional premium of $55,798. In September 2011, near the end of the initial coverage period, Indian Harbor sought a renewal application from Furnival. On December 30, 2011, Furnival requested that Indian Harbor provide Furnival with “[p]roposed premiums payable and all other relevant terms and conditions for a renewal policy that the named insured is entitled to and allowed to elect under the policy.” In late January 2012, Indian Harbor sent Furnival’s insurance broker its version of a renewal offer (the Indication of Coverage). The Indication provided $5 million of coverage over a one-year term, and omitted coverage for Elizabethtown, the only previously insured site for which Furnival had made a claim. Unsatisfied with the terms of the Indication, Furnival rejected it and, two days later, requested that Indian Harbor send an offer to
decrease in reinsurance has occurred. . .. The Company agrees that it shall not cancel nor non-renew this Policy except for the reasons stated above. All other terms and conditions remain the same. 5 renew under the same terms and conditions as the Policy. On January 31, 2012, Indian Harbor informed Furnival that it would not provide a revised offer. In February 2012, Furnival sent Indian Harbor a notice accepting “the renewal extension that Indian Harbor was obligated to offer under Endorsement No. 16,” along with a check for $520,498 to serve as the premium for the renewed Policy. Indian Harbor returned the check and rejected Furnival’s request. On March 23, 2012, Indian Harbor filed a Complaint against Furnival, seeking declaratory judgment on four issues:
Policy as required by Endorsement No. 16;
renew the Policy, resulting in its termination on December 31, 2011;
renew the Policy under the same terms and conditions as the expiring Policy; and
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.