Pitzer College, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, Defendant and Respondent.

Summary

The court held that California's notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy that can override a contractual choice-of-law provision when the remaining choice-of-law requirements are satisfied. It further held that the rule generally applies to consent provisions in first-party insurance policies, but not to consent provisions in third-party liability policies because the insurer's control of defense and settlement is central in the latter context. The court left the federal court to determine whether the policy provided first-party or third-party coverage and whether California had a materially greater interest than New York. No separate opinions were filed.