Opinion ID: 3066755
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: loss of reinsurance or a substantial

Text: 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.