Clarendon National Insurance v. Foley & Bezek, LLP
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Foley & Bezek (Foley) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment for both Continental Casualty Company (Continental) and Clarendon National Insurance Company (Clarendon). Foley contends the district court erred, arguing that there are questions of material fact with respect to (1) whether it was entitled to coverage under its malpractice policies for a claim made during the Continental policy period and first reported during the Clarendon policy period, and (2) whether the Revocation and Sanction awards as modified by the August 3, 2001, Order, were excluded from coverage under the terms of the policies. We reject both contentions and affirm.
The insurance policies issued by Continental and Clarendon were “claims made and reported” policies. Any claim for coverage had to be both made and reported within the respective policy periods. The claim against Foley was first made on June 5, 2000, during the Continental policy period, but was not reported until July 2000, after the expiration of the Continental policy. Accordingly, coverage does not exist under either policy.