Opinion ID: 1474342
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: London's Expanded Motion Superior Court's Trigger Ruling

Text: London's reply to HCC's answering brief raised an issue that was not presented in its original motion. London's reply brief argued that HCC had never given the notice required to activate the seven-year tail coverage. The Superior Court accepted this argument without affording HCC an opportunity to respond to the lack of notice proposition, even though London had raised it for the first time in its reply brief. The Superior Court also did not require London, the moving party, to aver or otherwise demonstrate that the LNO and NOC policy provisions cited by HCC did not refute London's original allegation that the policy language was unambiguous. Instead, the Superior Court ruled that it was HCC's burden to present evidence that it had given notice to activate the LNO and NOC provisions; and, in addition, that it was HCC's burden to show that claims were made during that seven-year period. [6] In the Superior Court's view: Plaintiffs, while arguing a legal theory under which the notice of circumstance and/or loss notification clauses of the London Market Insurers' policies might override the claims made in writing provision, proffer no facts to fit those legal theories, i.e., no notice of circumstance was made during the terms of the policies; likewise, no claims appear to have been made upon which a loss notification could be added to provide a coverage tail. The Superior Court granted London's motion to the extent that [HCC] may only seek coverage for claims which were made in writing during the policy period or which are losses incurred for a claim or claims that had already been made in writing during the policy period (the Claims-Made Trigger Ruling). The Superior Court also found, sua sponte, that the policies had been negotiated. The Superior Court held that: The insurance contracts between plaintiffs and London Market Insurers are negotiated contracts and not contracts of adhesion. Plaintiffs are sophisticated purchasers and defendants are sophisticated vendors.... The language of the London market policies is clear and unambiguous.