In the case of <i></i>Vanderhoff v. Harleysville Insurance<i></i>, Harleysville disclaimed coverage to its insured on the basis of the insured's failure to provide timely notice. After working its way through the system, the Supreme Court was confronted with the issue of what the insurer needed to prove to deny coverage. The Supreme Court held that a late notice disclaimer requires a carrier to demonstrate prejudice (even in the case of an uninsured motorist claim involving a phantom vehicle).
<a href="http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-43-2008mo.pdf">http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-43-2008mo.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-43-2008do.pdf">http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-43-2008do.pdf</a>
If you would like more information about this post, please contact Bob Cosgrove at <a href="mailto:rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com">rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com</a>.