 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
PRIOR v. S.C. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LIAB. INS.2/25/1991
ired by the policy is not timely given, cannot recover. . . ." Lee v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 180 S.C. 475, 486, 186 S.E. 376, 381 (1936). In November 1984, Prior knew that the Patient was complaining of his conduct, but he did not contact JUA until August 1986. Prior also failed to forward the summons and complaint to JUA until approximately four months after he received them. JUA's insurance policy clearly states that it is the insured's duty to notify JUA " pon the Insured's becoming aware of
Prior argues that JUA must show that it was substantially prejudiced by the delay in order to deny coverage. The cases upon which Prior relies, however, involve innocent third parties. Here there is no innocent third party beneficiary. The Patient has been paid her judgment. " he failure to give the required notice in the allotted time is fatal to the right of recovery, even if it be shown that the insurance company has suffered no harm by the delay." Lee v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 180 S.C. at 487, 186 S.E. at 381. Prior failed to notify JUA in a timely manner, thus violating the insurance policy. This failure justified JUA's refusal to defend and to deny coverage.
We hold that the Patient's claim did not arise from the performance of professional services and Prior failed to notify JUA in a timely manner. For these reasons JUA had no duty to defend or provide coverage. The opinion of the trial judge is affirmed.
Affirmed.
|