Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

Are Insurance Late Notice Provisions Toothless After <i>Arrowood v. King</i>?

This article examines post-2012 Connecticut case law addressing late-notice provisions in various insurance policies and attempts answer the question: Are late-notice provisions now toothless or do they still have some bite?

12 minute read May 01, 2016 at 11:32 AM
By
Regen O'Malley and Steven Zakrzewski
Are Insurance Late Notice Provisions Toothless After <i>Arrowood v. King</i>?

Until 2012, an insured seeking coverage after providing late notice of a claim had the burden of proving that its insurer was not prejudiced by the late notice ' if the insured could not meet this burden, then the claim would not be covered.

This premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), which works under the umbrella of the Librarian of Congress, sets statutory-license royalty terms and rates. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently issued two notable decisions about the CRB.

October 01, 2026