WPCN=  qڥk$CF}I.m+h@U 07dQt|I[rh\SDRǃ#d6E cĚJ!0|LCPp?n}nR5҅p/5uǹp'XuIM+ǩ EFOEEaU>ϊ2>!W p;2OFk+x`g ]bI漼"R>2]r lAZ7XATP攊uAκ\ʿ)2;V7AO(bb/}li  d,=xJXd@.GK.(`2evOX ʦ8L"8dcD) bw+>e]?W$q+NiL a^+6O>q|.&6~!׷'?<~(lf$H+R@XF )p9@Ay iS.F# UN %- 0(3U:[bw@4 0 0Do U: U: f' > -LDU!:U:TU: ]ZU: AQBU: B !U:#U:)$c$ 0D&(U:j(w( 0D- 0D_-- B1U:1(1 D/3B3 BJ3g3lj4U:7 D38C8U:9:U: ; ; ; ;U:C;C;};};};};};};};};};};U:=HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,  AZ"Arial Regular- - DDEFGHDIJDKLӀVcl&3|x]   )X>XXX  z)C X)X>   2    ݀ForthereasonsarticulatedbytheCourtofAppeals,itisclearthatthereisnogenuineissue  ofmaterialfactthatAlcazardidnotprovidenotice assoonaspossibleinaccordancewiththepolicy.Firstofall,theplaintiffsignorancethathewasnotincludedwithinthecoverageisnotalegaljustification.Secondly,therecorddoesnotcontainanyevidencesuggestingthathisbraininjuryprohibitedhimfromcomplyingwiththenoticeprovision.# )C(#(M(2:$ !   XX    0  (#$  0  ,  AZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular \\RA' Legal\ 4   zXX   3    ݀C Apromptnoticerequirementhasalsobeenjustifiedbecauseitenablestheinsurerto  preserveanadequatereservefund.UticaMut.Ins.v.FiremansFundIns.Co.,748F.2d118,121(2d  Cir.1984).Furthermore,incertaincircumstancesinwhichaninsuredsconductisharmingtheenvironment,promptnoticebenefitsthepublicbyenablingtheinsurertopreventtheinsuredscontinuedconduct.See  CommercialUnionIns.v.IntlFlavors&Fragrances,822F.2d267,271(2d ( Cir.1987).# C# ##Xd# B   zXX   4    ݀C AlthoughtheArkansasCourtofAppeals,sittingenbanc,heldthatprejudiceisirrelevantwith  regardtoclaimsmadepolicies,itsuggestedthatadifferentoutcomewouldapplytooccurrencepolicies.Id. at288.# C#C Undera claimsmadepolicy,coverageisonlyprovidedifaclaimismadeduring# C#C  H # C|#C thepolicyperiod.Underan occurrencepolicy,coverageisprovidedifthequalifyingincidentoccurs ` withintheperiodofthepolicy,regardlessofwhentheclaimisfiled.  Id.at285.# C#C Afederaldistrictcourt ( hassubsequentlyheldthatArkansaslawstillappliesthetraditionalruletooccurrencepolicies.State  FarmFire&Cas.Co.v.Michael,822F.Supp.575,581(W.D.Ark.1993).# C#    zXX   11    C ԀOhiocourtsappeartobesplitonthisissue.Cf. OwensCorningFiberglasv.American  Centennial,660N.E.2d770,784(OhioCom.Pl.1995),discussedinfra.,cAZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular X>XXX9X>XXX>   z9C X9X>   5    ݀InCityofMemphisv.Overton,392S.W.2d98,100(Tenn.1965),thisCourtacknowledged  that itisaxiomaticthatthisStatehaslongapprovedofthedoctrineofstaredecisis.However,wealsonotedJusticeBrandeissdissentinBurnetv.CoronadoOil&GasCo.,285U.S.393,52S.Ct.443,76 @ L.Ed.815(1932),quotingapprovingly:8 Staredecisisisnot...auniversalinexorablecommand. Theruleofstaredecisis,thoughonetendingtoconsistencyanduniformityofdecisionisnotinflexible.  ! ! Overton,392S.W.2dat100(quotingBurnet,285U.S.at40506,52S.Ct.at447(Brandeis,J.,  @ dissenting)(internalcitationsomitted));seealso  PlannedParenthoodv.Casey,505U.S.833,98283,    112S.Ct.2791,2875,120L.Ed.2d674(1992)(Scalia,J.,dissenting).̀#C  9C#,  AZ"Arial Regular S   zXX   8    ݀C NorthCarolinahasathreestepprocessthatmakesitsomewhatofanuancefromother  states:first,itisdeterminedwhethertimelynoticewasgiven;thentheinsuredmustshowthatheorsheactedingoodfaith;andfinally,ifgoodfaithisshown,theburdenshiftstotheinsurertoshowthatithasbeen materiallyprejudicedbythedelay.Id . at776.,  AZ"Arial Regular"%&+C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5,  AZ"Arial Regular    zXX   12    ݀ C TheseVirginiacasesstatethattheinsurerneednotshowthatithasbeenprejudicedinthe  eventthattheviolationofthenoticeclauseis substantialandmaterial.Id.;Walton,423S.E.2dat192.    zXX   9    C ԀIowahasanuancewherebytheinsurerbearstheburdenofproofintheeventthatthe  insureddemonstratesexcuseorlegaljustification.Id . (citing  MetCoilSys.Corp.v.ColumbiaCas.Co., x 524N.W.2d650,654(Iowa1994)).,  AZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular    zXX   13    #C ԀAsnotedinFootnoteNo.11,Ohiocourtsappeartobesplitonthisissue.InOwensCorning,  thecourtnotedthattheOhioSupremeCourtacknowledgedtherebuttablepresumptionapproachin x Rubyv.MidwesternIndem.Co.,532N.E.2d730(Ohio1988),butopinedthatsincetheSupremeCourt @ didnotincludetheruleinitssyllabus,itimplicitlyrejectedit.OwensCorning,660N.E.2dat784;but  X  see C #C ChampionSparkPlug,687N.E.2dat791;##C C#  FillhartC #C,684N.E.2dat1303.##C C\#ԛ(3$ !  ,  AZ"Arial Regular m   zXX   6    ݀C JudgeFranks,writingfortheCourt,alsostated:   8 0 # C#C This[themoderntrend]isanappealingapproachsinceinsurancepolicies, H unlikeothercontracts,arenotpurelyprivateagreementsbutaffectthepublicgenerally.Theargumentispersuasiveanditsapplicationwouldbefairandmanifestlyequitablesincethenoticerequirementisforthebenefitoftheinsurerand,untilitisestablishedthatnon-compliancehasresultedindetrimenttotheinsurer,thecourtsshouldnotpredicateaforfeitureontechnicalnon-compliance.Moreover,innocentthirdpartybeneficiariesareoftenadverselyaffectedbyforfeitureofcoverageswherepremiumshavebeenpaidforsuchpurpose.# C?#  0 !0 ! Id . at335. h  8 (3$ !  ($$   1   0X>XXXEX>XX0X>   zEC XEX>   10    ݀Wisconsinhasastatutestatingthatapolicymaynotbeforfeitedpursuanttoanotice  provisionifnoticeisprovidedwithinoneyearofthetimeprovidedinthepolicy, unlesstheinsurerisprejudicedtherebyanditwasreasonablypossibletomeetthetimelimit.Wis.Stat.Ann.631.81(1995).Wisconsincourtshaveheldthatifnoticeisprovidedmorethanoneyearafterthetimespecifiedinthepolicy, thereisarebuttablepresumptionofprejudiceandtheburdenofproofshiftstotheclaimant.Gerrard,277N.W.2dat872;see  also  Rentmeesterv.WisconsinLawyersMut.Ins.Co.,  473N.W.2d160,164(Wis.App.1991).#0C  EC;# d,  AZ"Arial Regular   zXX   14    ݀Sincetheissueisnotbeforeus,weneednotdecidewhetherthisapproachshouldapplytoa  standardliabilitypolicy.--' dxdP Pd ""  3X,XXX3K X3X,   Ad FILED3X,X 3K  March15,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh  b  X>XXX  zC XX>   15    ݀InTennessee,thepartyseekingreliefunderatheoryofquantummeruitbearstheburden  ofproof.D.T.McCall&Sonsv.Seagraves,796S.W.2d457,464(Tenn.App.1990);JohnJ.Heirigs x Const.Co.v.Exide,709S.W.2d604,607(Tenn.App.1986)( Ifplaintiffistorecoveronthetheories @ ofquantummeruitandunjustenrichmentitmustcarrytheburdenofprovingthevalueoftheworkperformed.)(citingMoyersv.Graham,83Tenn.57(1885);Sadlerv.MiddleTenn.Elec.Membership   Corp.,259S.W.2d544(Tenn.App.1952)).# C(#,  AZ"Arial Regular(((('dxd |X>XXX  zC XX>   1    ݀# C#C # C#C Hayesisnotapartytothisappeal.# C#,cAZ"Arial Regular ""  5X,XXX5K X5X,   Ad FILED5X,X 5K  December21,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular    zXX   7    ݀C SeeCentralAdjustmentBureau,Inc.v.Ingram,678S.W.2d28,37(Tenn.1984);Warrenv.  Metro,955S.W.2d618,623(Tenn.App.1997).# C#,  AZ"Arial Regular !  ݛX,XXX  †TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T 7XXdd7  =XXdd=ӜVVVLLr.1<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP  rVLLVt41>.*jx` `@E@` 8ttxPx4 tߛV@  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE | @(ATKNOXVILLE  h   0      8     FORPUBLICATION  < DAVIDALCAZAR,     8   )  Filed: December21,1998      0      8   ) PlaintiffAppellant,   8   )  BRADLEYCOUNTY     0      8   )v.  0      8   )  Hon.EarleG.Murphy H!  #  V    0      8   )  Judge <  CHRISTOPHERHAYES,    8   ) "r   0      8   ) Defendant,     8   )  SupremeCourt >   0      8   )  No.03S019804CV00035 $   0      8   )and  0      8   )    0      8   )GOVERNMENTEMPLOYEES 8   ) l INSURANCECOMPANY,   8   ) R  DefendantAppellee, 8   ) 8  UninsuredMotoristCarrier  )   @      H!  #  n FORAPPELLANT:     8     FORAPPELLEE:  JimmyW.Bilbo     8     DonaldW.Strickland !  Logan,Thompson,Miller,Bilbo, 8     StevenW.Grant h"! ЀThompson&Fisher,P.C. 8     Grant,Konvalinka&Harrison,P.C. N#" Cleveland,TN     8     Chattanooga,TN 4$#   0      8     /@&FORAMICUSCURIAE &6"& TennesseeDefenseLawyersAssoc.    TennesseeTrialLawyersAssoc. #  ($( BrianH.Trammell     8     ThomasStrattonScott,Jr. H!  #  )$) Knoxville,TN     8     Knoxville,TN   H!  #  ~*%* NationalAssociationofIndependent J,', Insurers 0-(- G.BrianJacksonAmandaHaynesYoungNashville,TN PXX,#X,XP_#PXX,@VV( OPINION #X,XP#Ԉ H505 DDTRIALCOURTANDCOURTOFAPPEALSREVERSED;D†TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  DCASEREMANDEDTOTRIALCOURT     @     DROWOTA,J.  D:5: †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  a  X$XXX,@%%+ OPINION    ThissuitarosefromamotorvehicleaccidentinwhichplaintiffDavidAlcazarwasinjured.AlcazarappealsfromtheCourtofAppealsaffirmanceofthetrialcourtsawardofsummaryjudgmenttodefendantGovernmentEmployeesInsuranceCompany( GEICO).Thesoleissueforourdeterminationiswhetheraninsurancepolicyisautomaticallyforfeitedwhentheinsureddoesnotcomplywiththepolicysnoticeprovision,regardlessofwhethertheinsurerhasbeenprejudicedbythedelay.Forthereasonsstatedhereinafter,wereversethejudgmentsofthelowercourtsandremandthecasetothetrialcourt.̀@ I.FACTS&PROCEDURALHISTORY 󀀈 0  OnNovember3,1995,plaintiffAlcazaranddefendantChristopherHayeswereworkinginchickenhousesonafarminBradleyCountyownedbyAlcazarsmother.AlcazaraskedHayesforaridetopickupAlcazarstruck.HayesagreedundertheconditionthatAlcazarrideonthetrunkofthecar,sincehewasextremelydirty.AlcazaracquiescedandduringthedriveAlcazarwasflungfromthetrunk,strikinghisheadonthepavedroadway.Alcazar,whowaseighteenyearsoldandlivingwithhismother,washospitalizedforacoupleofdaysandthenreturnedhome.Alcazarallegesthathesuffersinjuriesasaresultoftheaccident,includingpermanentbraindamage. Atthetimeoftheaccident,Alcazarwascoveredundera FamilyAutomobileInsurancePolicyissuedbyGEICOto#X,XX X$j#X$XXX,Alcazarsmother,#X,XXX$# X$XXX,ԀDeborahWheatley.An 3.2  uninsuredmotoristcoverageprovisioninthispolicyincludesthefollowingclauses:8 1.Notice  ! ! 8 Assoonaspossibleafteranaccidentnoticemustbegivenusorourauthorizedagentstating: :p59 ! ! Ї8 (a)theidentityoftheinsured; ! ! 8 (b)thetime,placeanddetailsoftheaccident;and  ! ! 8 (c)thenamesandaddressesoftheinjured,andofanywitnesses.  ! !   0     * 8 *  * P  8 3.ActionAgainstUs  ! ! 8 Suitwillnotlieagainstusunlesstheinsuredorhislegalrepresentative  p  havefullycompliedwithallthepolicyterms.  ! ! (Italicsinoriginal).ItisundisputedthatAlcazarqualifiedasan insuredunderthepolicy. AlthoughtheexactdatethatGEICOreceivednoticeoftheaccidentissomewhatuncertain,itisclearthatnoticewasnotprovideduntilapproximatelyoneyearaftertheaccident.Atthistime,AlcazarfiledaComplaintseekingdamagesforhispersonalinjuriessufferedasaresultoftheaccident.#XXX X>k#X>XXXHayes2  #  1      #XXXX>"# X>XXXԀwaslistedasa 0 defendantandGEICOwasaddedasapartydefendantinaccordancewithTennesseesuninsuredmotoriststatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.5671201etseq. @ (Repl.1994&Supp.1998).AlcazarandWheatleytestifiedthatnoticewasnotprovidedtoGEICOearlierbecausetheymistakenlyassumedthatthepolicydidnotapplysinceAlcazarwasnotthedriveroftheautomobileinvolvedintheaccident.Wheatleyalsotestifiedthatshedidnotintendtomakeaclaimontheinsurancepolicyuntilnearlyayearaftertheaccident,becauseshedidnotlearnuntilthistimetheextentofAlcazarsbraininjury. GEICOfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,assertingthatunderthetermsofthepolicy,theycouldnotbesuedsincethenoticeprovisionwasbreached.Alcazarinsistedthatnoticewasprovided assoonaspossibleand,alternatively,arguedthatthepolicycouldnotbeforfeitedsincetherewasnoevidencethatGEICOwasprejudicedbythedelay.ThetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttoGEICOandAlcazarappealed.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmed,findingthatGEICOcouldnot P726 belistedasapartydefendantsinceAlcazarbreachedthenoticeprovision.Althoughfindingplaintiffs noprejudiceargument appealing,theCourtofAppeals,citingcaselawprecedentinthisState,heldthatprejudicetotheinsurerisimmaterialtotheissue,stating: ItisnotourprerogativetooverrulecontrollingSupremeCourtprecedent.@FF( II.ANALYSIS 8 @ 8@!@!@ hh  Thesoleissueforourreviewconcernswhetheraninsured,whofailstocomplywiththenoticeprovisionofhisorherinsurancepolicy,mayneverthelessenforcethepolicyintheeventthattheinsurerhasnotbeenprejudicedbythedelay.   #  2      ׀While p conductingthisreview,wemustreexamineestablishedprecedentinthisStateholdingthatprejudicetotheinsurerisirrelevanttotheinquiry.@# A.StandardofReview  @  Summaryjudgmentisappropriateifthemovant,GEICO,demonstratesthatnogenuineissuesofmaterialfactexistandthatGEICOisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.03.Wemusttakethestrongestviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,Alcazar,allowingallreasonableinferencesinfavorofAlcazaranddiscardingallcountervailingevidence.Shadrickv.Coker,963 P(#& S.W.2d726,731(Tenn.1998)(citingByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,21011(Tenn. 0*%( 1993)).Sinceourreviewconcernsonlyquestionsoflaw,thetrialcourtsjudgmentisnotpresumedcorrect,andourreviewisdenovoontherecordbeforethisCourt. -@), Warrenv.EstateofKirk,954S.W.2d722,723(Tenn.1997);#XXX X>"#X>XXXBainv.Wells,936 / +. S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997)#XXXX> /# X>XXX. 1-0  3.2 @cc B.ConstructionofInsuranceContracts    Ingeneral,courtsshouldconstrueinsurancecontractsinthesamemannerasanyothercontract.McKimmv.Bell,790S.W.2d526,527(Tenn.1990);Draperv. p GreatAm.Ins.Co.,458S.W.2d428,432(Tenn.1970).InBobPearsallMotors,Inc. P  v.RegalChryslerPlymouth,Inc.,521S.W.2d578(Tenn.1975),westated: 0  8 Thecardinalruleforinterpretationofcontractsistoascertaintheintentionofthepartiesandtogiveeffecttothatintention,consistentwithlegalprinciples.ItistheCourt'sdutytoenforcecontractsaccordingtotheirplainterms.Further,thelanguageusedmustbetakenandunderstoodinitsplain,ordinaryandpopularsense.Thecourts,ofcourse,areprecludedfromcreatinganewcontractfortheparties.  ! ! Id.at580(internalcitationsomitted);seealsoGalyonv.FirstTenn.Bank,803  S.W.2d218,219(Tenn.1991);Whaleyv.Underwood,922S.W.2d110,112(Tenn. p App.1995). Tennessee,likemoststates,recognizesthevalidityofconditionsprecedentforinsurancecoverage,includinguninsuredmotoristcoverage.McKimm,790 @ S.W.2dat528;PhoenixCottonOilCo.v.RoyalIndem.Co.,140Tenn.438,442,205   S.W.128,130(1918).Intheinstantcase,GEICOcontendsthatAlcazarscompliancewiththenoticeprovisionwasaconditionprecedentforcoverage.BecauseAlcazarfailedtoprovidenotice assoonaspossiblepursuanttotheinsurancecontract,GEICOassertsthatcoveragewasautomaticallyforfeited.@AA" C.TraditionalApproach  ,`'*  ForyearsTennesseehasconsistentlyadheredtothetraditionalcommonlawapproachthat:8 (1)noticeisaconditionprecedenttorecoveryunderthepolicyand(2)thereneednotbeanyshowingofprejudice.  ! ! HartfordAcc.&Indem.Co.v.Creasy,530S.W.2d778,779(Tenn.1975)(citing 4/3 PhoenixCotton,205Tenn.438,205S.W.128).Althoughthisapproachisgrounded `615 onastrictcontractualinterpretationmethodology,thisCourthasacknowledgedunderlyingpublicpolicyrationalesthatserveasthebasisfortheinclusionofthis vital  :p59 andindispensableconditionprecedentinaninsurancepolicy:8 [W]erecognizethatthenoticerequirementofaninsurancepolicyprovidinguninsuredmotoristcoveragebasedonhit-and-runincidents,whilefoundedincontract,alsoaredeeplyrootedinpublicpolicyconsiderations.Notonlyistheinsurorentitledtonoticeinorderthatitmaymakepromptinvestigationandprepareforthedefenseoftheclaim,itisentitledtoprotectitsinterestsinanareasusceptibletothepresentationofspuriousclaims.Also,itisinthepublicinterestthatlitigationbeminimizedand,tothisend,itisessentialthattheinsurancecompanybeinapositiontosettleclaimsonaknowledgeablebasis.  ! ! Creasy,530S.W.2dat779;seealsoAllstateIns.Co.v.Fitzgerald,743F.Supp.539, @  542(W.D.Tenn.1993).Onecommentatorhasnoted:8 Thepurposeofapolicyprovisionrequiringtheinsuredtogivethecompanypromptnoticeofanaccidentorclaimistogivetheinsureranopportunitytomakeatimelyandadequateinvestigationofallthecircumstances.Anadequateinvestigationoftencannotbemadewherenoticeislongdelayed,becauseofthepossibleremovalorlapseofmemoryonthepartofwitnesses,thelossofopportunityforexaminationofthephysicalsurroundingsandmakingphotographsthereofforuseatthetrial,andthepossibleoperationoffraud,collusion,orcupidity.Sucharequirementtendstoprotecttheinsureragainstfraudulentclaims,andalsoagainstinvalidclaimsmadeingoodfaith.Iftheinsurerisgiventheopportunityforatimelyinvestigation,reasonablecompromisesandsettlementsmaybemade,therebyavoidingprolongedandunnecessarylitigation.  ! ! 1EricMillsHolmes&MarkS.Rhodes,ApplemanonInsurance4.30(2ded.1996);   М#XXX X>/#X>XXXse#XXXX>6B# X>XXXe򛀜also13AGeorgeJ.Couch,etal.,CouchonInsurance49:50(2drev.ed. "  1982);RichardL.Suter,InsurerPrejudice:AnAnalysisofanExpandingDoctrinein $" InsuranceCoverageLaw,46Me.L.Rev.221,22324(1994);F.WarrenJacoby, p&!$ Comment,TheMaterialityofPrejudicetotheInsurerasaResultoftheInsureds P(#& FailuretoGiveTimelyNotice,74Dick.L.Rev.260,26263(1970);Comment,68 0*%( Harv.L.Rev.1436,143638(1955).Conversely,thepublicisharmedbyuntimelyclaimsduetoincreasedpremiumsandinadequateinsuranceadministration.  #  3      כWaters -@), v.AmericanAuto.Ins.Co.,363F.2d684,687(D.C.Cir.1966);YorkshireIndem.Co. / +. v.Roosth&GenecovProd.Co.,252F.2d650,65657(5thCir.1958);Comment,74 1-0 Dick.L.Rev.at263. 3.2 Ї Thesesentimentshavebeenechoedbycourtsinotherjurisdictionsthathaveadheredtothetraditionalapproach.See,e.g.,AmericanHomeAssur.Co.v.Intl  Ins.,684N.E.2d14,16(N.Y.1997)( [I]tissettledlawinNewYorkthat[a]bsenta p validexcuse,afailuretosatisfythenoticerequirementvitiatesthepolicy...andtheinsurerneednotshowprejudicebeforeitcanassertthedefenseofnoncompliance.)(internalcitationsomitted));Marezv.DairylandIns.Co.,638P.2d286(Colo.1981); `  PublicServiceCo.v.Wallis,955P.2d564,(Colo.App.1997);Vianiv.AetnaIns.Co., @  501P.2d706(Idaho1972),overruledonothergrounds,565P.2d564(1977);State   FarmMut.Auto.Ins.Co.v.Cassinelli,216P.2d606(Nev.1950);Campbell&Co.v.  UticaMut.Ins.Co.,820S.W.2d284(Ark.App.1991)  #  4      כ;HartfordIns.Groupv.Liberty  Mut.Ins.Co.,311A.2d506(D.C.App.1973). p М̛@& D.ModernTrend  0  Whileoncetheoverwhelmingmajorityapproachinthiscountry,thenumberofjurisdictionsthatstillfollowthetraditionalviewhasdwindleddramatically.See @ CharlesC.Marvel,Annotation,ModernStatusofRulesRequiringLiabilityInsurerto   ShowPrejudicetoEscapeLiabilityBecauseofInsuredsFailureorDelayInGivingNoticeofAccidentorClaim,orinForwardingSuitPapers,32A.L.R.4th141,3[a] $" (1984&Supp.1997);13ACouchonInsurance49:338&49:50;1Applemanon p&!$ Insurance4.30.Inrecentyearsa moderntrendhasdeveloped,andavast P(#& majorityofjurisdictionsnowconsiderwhethertheinsurerhasbeenprejudicedbytheinsuredsuntimelynotice.Seeid.;32A.L.R.4th141,3[b]5;13ACouchon ,`'* Insurance49:339&49:50.Althoughthesecourtshaveenumeratedvarious -@), publicpolicyjustificationstosupportthisshift,areviewofthesecasesindicatesthatthreerationalesareparticularlypervasive:1)theadhesivenatureofinsurance 1-0 contracts;2)thepublicpolicyobjectiveofcompensatingtortvictims;and3)theinequityoftheinsurerreceivingawindfallduetoatechnicality. Manystateshaverecognizedtheadhesivenatureofinsurancecontractsasajustificationforamoreliberalapproach.Inreality,mostinsurancepoliciesareformcontractsdraftedbytheinsurer,andtheinsuredhaslittle,ifany,bargainingpower.Whenadoptingthemoderntrend,theSupremeCourtofPennsylvaniainBrakeman @  v.PotomacIns.Co.,371A.2d193(Pa.1977),cogentlyarticulatedthisjustification   asfollows:8 Therationaleunderlyingthestrictcontractualapproachreflectedinourpastdecisionsisthatcourtsshouldnotpresumetointerferewiththefreedomofprivatecontractsandredraftinsurancepolicyprovisionswheretheintentofthepartiesisexpressedbyclearandunambiguouslanguage.Weareoftheopinion,however,thatthisargument,basedontheviewthatinsurancepoliciesareprivatecontractsinthetraditionalsense,isnolongerpersuasive.Suchapositionfailstorecognizethetruenatureoftherelationshipbetweeninsurancecompaniesandtheirinsureds.Aninsurancecontractisnotanegotiatedagreement;ratheritsconditionsarebyandlargedictatedbytheinsurancecompanytotheinsured.Theonlyaspectofthecontractoverwhichtheinsuredcanbargainisthemonetaryamountofcoverage.And...noticeofaccidentprovisions...areuniformlyfoundinliabilityinsurancepolicies.Indeed,areviewofcasesindicatesthatoftenthepoliciesexpresstheconditioninidenticallanguage.  ! ! Id.at196(internalcitationsomitted);seealsoCooperativeFireIns.v.WhiteCaps, $" Inc.,694A.2d34,37(Vt.1997);Jonesv.BituminousCas.Corp.,821S.W.2d798, p&!$ 80102(Ky.1991);AetnaCas.&SuretyCo.v.Murphy,538A.2d219,222(Conn. P(#& 1988);Ouellettev.MaineBonding&Cas.Co.,495A.2d1232,1235(Me.1985); 0*%( GreatAm.Ins.Co.v.C.G.TateConst.,279S.E.2d769,774(N.C.1981);Johnson ,`'* Controls,Inc.v.Bowes,409N.E.2d185,187(Mass.1980);Suter,46Me.L.Rev. -@), at23435. Anotherpredominantbasisforthemoderntrendisthatitadvancesthepublicpolicygoalofcompensatingaccidentvictims,includinginnocentthirdparties.AccordingtotheCourtinBrakeman: P726 8 Insurancecontractsarenotpurelyprivatemattersbetweeninsurancecompaniesandtheirinsureds;ratherthereisapublicinterestin  :p59 automobileliabilityinsurancecontractsandthatistheprotectionofinnocentvictimsofautomobileaccidents.Thispublicinterestwouldbedisservedbyarulethatdeniedanaccidentvictimrecoveryagainsttheinsurancecompanybecauseitreceivedlatenoticeoftheaccident,eventhoughitsufferednoprejudiceasaconsequencethereof.  ! ! Brakeman,371A.2dat198n.8(internalcitationsomitted);seealsoC.G.Tate,279 P  S.E.2dat774( [A]doptionofthemodernrule...promotesthesocialfunctionofinsurancecoverage:providingcompensationforinjuriessustainedbyinnocentmembersofthepublic.);WeaverBros.#XXX X>}B#X>XXXԀInc.v.Chappel,684P.2d123,125(Alaska @  1984)#XXXX>_# X>XXX;Millerv.Dilts,463N.E.2d257,265(Ind.1984);OregonAuto.Ins.Co.v.   Salzberg,535P.2d816,820(Wash.1975);Cooperv.GovernmentEmployeesIns.  Co.,237A.2d870,87374(N.J.1968);Foxv.NationalSav.Ins.Co.,424P.2d19,  25(Okl.1967);Suter,46MaineL.Rev.at235. Athirdpopularrationalesupportingthemoderntrendfocusesontheintentoftheinclusionofthenoticeprovisionintheinsurancecontract.Itisreasonedthatnoticerequirementsaredevisedinordertoinsulatetheinsurerfromprejudiceand,thus,intheabsenceofprejudicethenoticeprovisionsshouldnotbestrictlyenforced.Onecourthasnoted:8 Thefunctionofthenoticerequirementsissimplytopreventtheinsurerfrombeingprejudiced,nottoprovideatechnicalescapehatchbywhichtodenycoverageintheabsenceofprejudice....  ! ! Millerv.Marcantel,221So.2d557,559(La.App.1969).Consequently,courtshave P(#& shiftedawayfromthetechnicalaspectsofcontractualinterpretationsothataninsurercannottakeadvantageof anundeservedwindfallasaresultofforfeiture.Ouellette,495A.2dat1235(citingBrakeman,371A.2dat19697);seealsoMurphy, -@), 538A.2dat420;WeaverBros.,684P.2dat125. / +. @& E.PublicPolicy  3.2  PublicpolicyinTennessee"istobefoundinitsconstitution,statutes,judicialdecisionsandapplicablerulesofcommonlaw.Stateexrel.Swannv.Pack,527 P726 S.W.2d99,112n.17(Tenn.1975),cert.denied,424U.S.954,96S.Ct.1429,47 0948 L.Ed.2d360(1976)(citingHomeBeneficialAssn.v.White,177S.W.2d545(Tenn.  1944));seealsoCrawfordv.Buckner,839S.W.2d754,759(Tenn.1992).Although  thedeterminationofpublicpolicyisprimarilyafunctionofthelegislature,thejudiciarymaydeterminepublicpolicyintheabsenceofanyconstitutionalorstatutorydeclaration.Crawford,839S.W.2dat759(citingHydev.Hyde,562S.W.2d194,196 0  (Tenn.1978);Cavenderv.Hewitt,145Tenn.471,475,239S.W.767,768(1921)). `  МInSpeigelv.Thomas,Mann&Smith,P.C.,811S.W.2d528(Tenn.1991),thisCourt @  stated:8 Unlessaprivatecontracttendstoharmthepublicgood,publicinterest,orpublicwelfare,ortoconflictwiththeconstitution,laws,orjudicialdecisionsofTennessee,itdoesnotviolatepublicpolicy.Thereverseisalsotrue:Acontractwithatendencytoinjurethepublicviolatespublicpolicy.  ! ! Ѐ#XXX X>_# X>XXX ` jId.at530(internalcitationsomitted). P  WebelievethatthepublicpolicyofTennesseeisconsistentwiththeoverwhelmingnumberofoursisterstatesthathaveadoptedthemoderntrend.#XXX X>k#X>XXXWe @ firstnotethatthisCourthasexplicitlyfoundthat [a]ninsurancepolicyisacontractofadhesiondraftedbytheinsurer.BillBrownConst.v.GlensFallsIns.,818S.W.2d "  1,12(Tenn.1991).InBrandtv.MutualBen.Health&Acc.Ass'n,202S.W.2d827 $" (Tenn.App.1947),ourCourtofAppealsstated:8 Itisageneralprinciple,pervadingthelawofallformsofinsurance,thatpoliciesshallbeliberallyconstruedinfavoroftheinsured.Thisbecausecourtsdonotshuttheireyestorealities;theyknowthatthepolicyisacontractof adhesion,i.e.notonewhichthepartieshavereachedbymutualnegotiationandconcession,notonewhichtrulyexpressesanyagreementatwhichtheyhavearrived,butonewhichhasbeenfixedbytheinsurerandtowhichtheinsuredmustadhere,ifhechoosestohaveinsurance.  ! ! Id.at831;seealsoHarrellv.MinnesotaMut.LifeIns.Co.,937S.W.2d809,814 0,/ (Tenn.1996);TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co.v.Witt,857S.W.2d26,32(Tenn. 2-1 1993).Assuch,weattempttoconstrueinsurancecontractssoastoprovidecoverage.Id. `615  Inaddition,thepublicpolicyofthisStatehaslongpromotedthenotionthat  :p59  7\XXdXXd7  @ 7lXXdXXd7  @victimsoftortsshouldrecovercompensationfortheirinjuries.See,e.g.,Collinsv.  EastT.,V.&G.R.R.Co.,56Tenn.(9Heiskell)841(1872).Tennesseesuninsured  motoristcoveragestatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.5671201etseq.(1994Repl.& p Supp.1998),wasenacted fortheprotectionofpersonsinsuredthereunderwhoarelegallyentitledtorecovercompensatorydamagesfromownersoroperatorsofuninsuredmotorvehicles.Tenn.CodeAnn.5671201(a)(Supp.1998).Webelievethatthispublicpolicymaybethwartedbytheharshapplicationofthelegalistictraditionalapproach,particularlysinceinnocentthirdpartiesriskbeingadverselyaffected. Third,weagreewithoursisterstatesthatitisinequitableforaninsurerthathasnotbeenprejudicedbyadelayinnoticetoreapthebenefitsflowingfromtheforfeitureoftheinsurancepolicy.Inlightoftheadhesivenatureofsuchcontractsaswellasourinclinationtoconstruethesecontractsagainstthedrafter/insurer,webelievethatthisStatespublicpolicydisfavorstheabilityofaninsurertoescapeitscontractualdutiesduetoatechnicality. Infact,caselawsuggeststhatthisStatehasbeguntoconsiderprejudicetotheinsurerwheninterpretinganinsurancecontract.InMcKimmv.Bell,790S.W.2d p&!$ 526(Tenn.1990),theplaintiffs/insuredssoughttoenforceanuninsuredmotoristpolicy.Afterconcludingthattheplaintiffshadprovidednotice assoonaspracticableinaccordancewiththepolicy,weconsideredwhethertheinsuredscompliedwithaclauserequiringthattheinsuredstimelyprovidetheinsurerwithdocumentation,suchasproofofloss,medicalforms,andpropertydamageassessments.Id.at52930.Wefound: 1-0 8 Inouropinion,plaintiffsactedreasonablyunderthecircumstancesandgavethematerialrequiredinformationasitbecameavailableandwasrequested.Further,thereisnoshowingthatanyprejudiceresultedto[theinsurer]fromtheactions,orinaction,oftheplaintiffs.  ! ! Id.at530;seealsoBushv.ExchangeMut.Ins.Co.,866S.W.2d575,577(Tenn. @837 App.1993).  :p59 Ї #XXXX>l# X>XXXOnonehand,wearereluctanttooverturnestablishedprecedentinthisState  thathasfollowedthetraditionalapproachforyears.  #  5      ׀Wenote,however,#XXX X>o}#X>XXXthatoneof  themainreasonsthatpromptedthisCourtin1918toembracethetraditionalapproachinPhoenixCottonwasthefactthatthiswastheapproachadoptedby P  nearlyall,ifnotall,ofoursisterstatesthathadconsideredtheissue.Phoenix 0  Cotton,140Tenn.at44344,206S.W.at130.InNorthRiverIns.Co.v.Johnson, `  757S.W.2d334(Tenn.App.1988),ourCourtofAppeals,indicta,commented:8 Interestingly,Creasy,inreaffirmingPhoenixCottonOilCo.,notedthe   opinionquotedwithapprovalaMassachusettscaseholding"noticeisoneoftheessentialsofthecauseofaction".140Tenn.444,205S.W.2dat130.In1980,however,MassachusettsinJohnson  Controls,Inc.v.Bowes,381Mass.278,409N.E.2d185(1980),  concedingthatitspriordecisionsweretoorestrictive,prospectivelyheldaninsurerwouldberequiredtoprovethenoticeprovisionhadbeenbreachedandthebreachresultedinprejudicetotheinsurerinordertoavoiditsobligationsonthepolicy.  ! ! Id.at33536$   #  6      .Infact,ourresearchindicatesthatonlytwostateswhosehighest 0 courtshaveconsideredtheissuewithinthelasttwentyyearshavecontinuedtostrictlyadheretothetraditionalapproach.SeeAmericanHomeAssur.,684N.E.2d @ 14(NewYork);Marez,638P.2d286(Colorado).7@    "   Moreover,ourpositionissupportedbytheRestatement(Second)of  Contracts.Section229oftheRestatementstates:  8 Totheextentthatthenonoccurrenceofaconditionwouldcausedisproportionateforfeiture,acourtmayexcusethenonoccurrenceofthatconditionunlessitsoccurrencewasamaterialpartoftheagreedexchange.  ! ! eRestatement(Second)ofContracts229(1981).Acommenttothissection  p  elaboratesthisconcept:8 Indeterminingwhethertheforfeitureis disproportionate,acourtmustweightheextentoftheforfeiturebytheobligeeagainsttheimportancetotheobligoroftheriskfromwhichhesoughttobeprotectedandthedegreetowhichthatprotectionwillbelostifthenonoccurrenceoftheconditionisexcusedtotheextentrequiredtopreventforfeiture.Thecharacteroftheagreementmay,asinthecaseofinsuranceagreements,affecttherigorwithwhichtherequirementisapplied.  ! ! Id.229cmt.b.Applyingthisprincipletothecircumstancesathand,wefindthatthe ` noticerequirementisimmaterialtotheinsurancecontractintheeventthattheinsurerisnotprejudiced.Consequently,theinsuredsfailuretocomplywiththisrequirementinsuchinstanceisexcused,sincea disproportionateforfeitureensues.Id.;see P alsoMurphy,538A.2dat221;Suter,46Me.L.Rev.at23536;5SamuelWilliston, 0 LawofContracts769811(3ded.1961&Supp.1998);3AArthurCorbin,Corbin ! onContracts,754(1960&Supp.1998).Thoughweare#XXXX>~# X>XXXhesitanttocarveoutan #! exceptiontotheaxiomproscribingjudicialalterationofthetermsofanunambiguousϜcontract,;  #  7      כ#XXX X>I#X>XXXwehavedetermined,#XXXX>o# X>XXXԀduetocompellingpublicpolicyjustifications,thatit `'"% isnowappropriatetodepartfromarigidapplicationofthetraditionalapproach.Wejointhevastmajorityofjurisdictionswhichtakeintoconsiderationthedegreetowhichtheinsurerhasbeenprejudicedbythedelayinnotice.̜@BB% F.BurdenofProof  2-1  Afterresolvingtojointhemoderntrend,wemustnowdeterminehowtoincorporatetheconsiderationofprejudiceintoouranalysis.Intheprocess,wemust `615 balancetheequitiesbetweentheparties.Statesthatconsiderprejudiceessentiallyfollowoneofthreedifferentapproaches:1)onceitisshownthattheinsuredhasbreachedthenoticeprovision,thecontractis,nevertheless,effectiveunlesstheinsurershowsthatithasbeenprejudicedbythedelay;2)onceitisshownthatthe P  insuredhasbreachedthenoticeprovision,arebuttablepresumptionexiststhattheinsurerhasbeenprejudicedbythedelay;and3)prejudicetotheinsurerisconsideredasafactorintheinitialinquiryofwhethertheinsuredprovidedtimelynotice.See32A.L.R.4th141,13ACouchonInsurance49:338;49:339;49:50;   1ApplemanonInsurance4.30.   Aclearpluralityofstatesholdthatonceitisdemonstratedthattheinsuredbreachedthenoticeprovision,theburdenofproofisallocatedtotheinsurertoprovethatithasbeenprejudicedbythebreach.See,e.g.,NationalUnionFireIns.Co.v. 0 F.D.I.C.,957P.2d357,368(Kan.1998);Weaverv.StateFarmMut.Auto.Ins.,936 ` S.W.2d818,821(Mo.1997);WhiteCaps,694A.2dat38(insurermustshow @  substantialprejudice);VermontMut.Ins.Co.v.Singleton,446S.E.2d417,42122   (S.C.1994)(insurermustshow substantialprejudice);Marquisv.FarmFamilyMut. "  Ins.Co.,628A.2d644,649(Me.1993);#XXX X>Ď# X>XXXJones,821S.W.2dat803;WeaverBros., $" 684P.2dat126;C.G.Tate,279S.E.2dat775  #  8      ;IndependentSchoolDist.No.1v. p&!$ Jackson,608P.2d1153,1155(Okl.1980);Brakeman,371A.2dat198;Salzberg, P(#& 535P.2dat819;Rampyv.StateFarmMut.Auto.Ins.Co.,278So.2d428,434 0*%( (Miss.1973)(insurermustshow substantialprejudice);Cooper,237A.2dat874; ,`'* Campbellv.AllstateIns.Co.,384P.2d155,157(Cal.1963);32A.L.R.4th5. -@), МManyofthesestatesreasonthatitismoreequitabletoplacetheburdenontheinsurer,sincetheinsureristheentitythatseekstorepudiateitsobligationsunderanadhesivecontract.See,e.g.,Brakeman,371A.2dat198;Cooper,237A.2dat874 3.2 n.3;Note,74Dick.L.Rev.at27273.Furthermore,itisreasonedthattheinsureris p504 inamuchbetterpositiontoprovethatithasbeenprejudiced,especiallysincetheinsuredwouldotherwisebeforcedtoproveanegative:thattheinsurerwasnotprejudiced.AstheSupremeCourtofKentuckystatedinJones: p 8 Therearetworeasonsforimposingtheburdenontheinsurancecarriertoproveprejudice,ratherthanimposingontheclaimanttheburdentoprovenoprejudiceresulted.Thefirstistheobviousone:itisvirtuallyimpossibletoproveanegative,soitwouldbedifficultifnotimpossiblefortheclaimanttoprovetheinsurancecarriersufferednoprejudice.Secondly,theinsurancecarrierisinafarsuperiorpositiontobeknowledgeableaboutthefactswhichestablishwhetherprejudiceexists.Indeed,itisdifficulttoimaginewheretheclaimantwouldlookforevidencethatnoprejudiceexists.  ! ! Jones,821S.W.2dat803;seealsoWhiteCaps,694A.2dat38;WeaverBros.,684  P.2dat126;C.G.Tate,279S.E.2dat776;Campbell,384P.2dat157.Another  rationaleisthatthisburdenallocationwillencouragetheinsurertoundertakeatimelypreliminaryinvestigationoftheinsuredsclaiminordertoprotectitsowninterest.C.G.Tate,279S.E.2dat77576. 0 Л Somejurisdictionsholdthatwhentheinsuredfailstocomplywithnoticerequirements,itispresumedthattheinsurerisprejudicedbythebreach.Thus,theinsuredbearstheburdenofrebuttingthispresumption.SeeSimpsonv.United "  StatesFid.&Guar.Co.,562N.W.2d627,63132(Iowa1997)  #  9      ;Miller,463N.E.2dat $" 265;Murphy,538A.2dat224;GerrardRealtyCorp.v.AmericanStatesIns.Co.,277 p&!$ N.W.2d863,872(Wis.1979)'  #  10      כ;Tiedtkev.Fidelity&Cas.Co.,222So.2d206,209 P(#& (Fla.1969);#XXX X>#X>XXXChampionSparkPlugv.Fidelity&Cas.Co.,687N.E.2d785,791#XXXX># X>XXXԀ#XXX X>v#X>XXX(Ohio 0*%(  App.1996);#XXXX># X>XXXԀFillhartv.WesternRes.Mut.Ins.Co.,684N.E.2d1301,1303(OhioApp. ,`'* 1996)  #  11      כ,32A.L.R.4th3[b].Thisapproachispredicateduponthefactthatthe   insuredistheparty seekingtobeexcusedfromtheconsequencesofacontractprovisionwithwhichhehasconcededlyfailedtocomply.Murphy,538A.2dat224. p Ithasalsobeenreasonedthattheinsuredisinabetterpositiontodemonstratethatvitalwitnessesarestillavailableandcrucialinformaionhasnotbeenlost.See,e.g., 0  ChampionSparkPlug,687N.E.2dat792(statingthattheinsureris notinaposition `  todiscernwhatinformationmaynowbeunavailablethattheycouldhavediscoveredwithtimelynotice.). Acknowledgingthatthenoticeprovisionsareincludedinpoliciesinordertoensurethatinsurersmayconductaproperinvestigation,theSupremeCourtofIndianaexplainedthisrebuttablepresumptionapproachasfollows:8 Thisadequateinvestigationisoftenfrustratedbyadelayednotice.Prejudicetotheinsurancecompanysabilitytoprepareanadequatedefensecanthereforebepresumedbyanunreasonabledelayinnotifyingthecompanyabouttheaccidentoraboutthefilingofthelawsuit.Thisisnotinconflictwiththepublicpolicytheorythatthecourtshouldseektoprotecttheinnocentthirdpartiesfromattemptsbyinsurancecompaniestodenyliabilityforsomeinsignificantfailuretonotify.Theinjuredpartycanestablishsomeevidencethatprejudicedidnotoccurintheparticularsituation.Oncesuchevidenceisintroduced,thequestionbecomesoneforthetrieroffacttodeterminewhetheranyprejudiceactuallyexisted.Theinsurancecarrierinturncanpresentevidenceinsupportofitsclaimofprejudice.Thus,bothpartiesareabletoputforththeirrespectivepositionsinthelegalarena.  ! ! Miller,463N.E.2dat26566.Moreover,theSupremeCourtofConnecticuthas `'"% analogizedtheissuetoburdenofproofallocationinunjustenrichmentsituationsinwhichthebreachingpartymustshowthattheotherpartyincurredagain:8 Principlesofunjustenrichmentandrestitutionbearafamilyresemblancetothoseinvolvedinconsiderationsofforfeiture.Underbothsetsofprinciples,thelawhascometopermitacomplainanttoseekafairallocationofprofitandlossdespitethecomplainantsownfailuretocomplyfullywithhiscontractobligations.Thedeterminationofwhatisfair,asafactualmatter,musthoweverdependuponapropershowingbythecomplainantwhoseeksthisextraordinaryrelief.  ! ! ЀMurphy,538A.2dat224. 4/3  `615  Finally,afewstateshaveincludedprejudicetotheinsurerasoneofseveral  factorstobeconsideredwhendeterminingwhethertheinsuredprovidedtimelynotice.Thus,prejudicetotheinsurerisviewedalongwithsuchfactorsastheinsuredsexcusefordelay,thelengthofthedelay,andthesophisticationoftheinsured.See,e.g.,Koskiv.AllstateIns.Co.,572N.W.2d636,639(Mich.1998) 0  (citingWendelv.Swanberg,185N.W.2d348(Mich.1971));StateAutoMut.Ins.Co. `  v.Youler,396S.E.2d737(W.Va.1990);StateFarmFire&Cas.Co.v.Walton,423 @  S.E.2d188,192(Va.1992)(citingStateFarmFire&Cas.Co.v.Scott,372S.E.2d   383,385(Va.1988))  #  12      ;StateFarmMut.Auto.Ins.Co.v.Burgess,474So.2d634,  637(Ala.1985);LumbermensMut.Cas.Co.v.Oliver,335A.2d666,668(N.H.  1975);AmericanCountryIns.Co.v.Bruhn,682N.E.2d366,370(Ill.App.1997); p OwensCorning,660N.E.2dat784;32A.L.R.4th4.!(  #  13      ׀Onitsface,thisapproach P isanalyticallyflawed.Whileprejudicemaypotentiallyarisefromaninsuredsfailuretofilenoticeinaccordancewiththecontract,itiscertainlynotafactorwhichhasanybearingonaninsuredsabilitytoprovidetimelynotice.AnothermajorfallacyofthisϜapproachisthatconsiderationofprejudicecouldinadvertentlyservetothedetrimentoftheinsured:aninsuredwhowouldotherwisebeadjudgedtohaveprovidedtimelynoticemaybeconsideredtohaveactedlatesincetheinsurerwasprejudiced.See $" Cooper,237A.2dat873;Comment,74Dick.L.Rev.at268. p&!$ @44# G.TennesseeApproach  0*%( М#XXX X>*#X>XXX Aftercarefullyweighingtheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofeachofthese ,`'* approaches,webelievethattherebuttablepresumptionruleisthesoundestapproachinthecontextofanuninsured/underinsuredmotoristpolicy*  #  14      ׀asitprovides / +. thebestbalancebetweenthecompetinginterests.WeagreewiththeSupremeCourtofConnecticutthattheinstantissueisakintounjustenrichmentlaw:inbothinstances,anundeservingpartyseeksforgivenessforhisorherownbreach./  #  15      ׀See p Murphy,438A.2dat224.Therefore,onceitisdeterminedthattheinsuredhasfailed P  toprovidetimelynoticeinaccordancewiththeinsurancepolicy,itispresumedthattheinsurerhasbeenprejudicedbythebreach.Theinsured,however,mayrebutthispresumptionbyprofferingcompetentevidencethattheinsurerwasnotprejudicedbytheinsuredsdelay.#XXXX>̺# X>XXXԛ    < <Althoughsummaryjudgmentisnotproperinthepresentcase,werecognizethatsummaryjudgmentmay,nevertheless,beappropriateinsomecircumstances.< <;8 8Weacknowledgethatsummaryjudgmentmay,nevertheless,beappropriateinsome P circumstances.Theinsuredmayprofferaffidavits,depositions,orotherevidenceinanattempttocreateanissueofmaterialfactthattheinsurerhasnotbeenprejudiced.Afterthisevidenceispresented,however,thetrialcourtmaygrantsummaryjudgmenttotheinsurerifareasonablefactfindercouldnotfindthattheinsurerwasnotprejudicedbythe9 9delay9 9.SeeFilhart,684N.E.2dat1303( [E]venif "  theinsuredpresentssomeevidencetorebutthepresumptionofprejudice,thein1surerstillmaybeentitledtosummaryjudgmentifreasonable13mindscouldonlyconcludethattheinsurersufferedactualprejudicefromthedelay.35);56ChampionSpark P(#& Plug67,687N.E.2dat792n.2.78 877;Wequoteapprovinglythefollowingnonexclusiveguidelinesfordeterminingwhether P theinsurerhasbeenprejudiced:8 theavailabilityofwitnessestotheaccident;theabilitytodiscoverotherinformationregardingtheconditionsofthelocalewheretheaccidentoccurred;anyphysicalchangesinthelocationoftheaccidentduringtheperiodofthedelay;theexistenceofofficialreportsconcerningtheoccurrence;thepreparationandpreservationofdemonstrativeandillustrativeevidence,suchasthevehiclesinvolvedintheoccurrence,orphotographsanddiagramsofthescene;theabilityofexpertstoreconstructthesceneandtheoccurrence;andsoon.  ! ! C.G.Tate,279S.E.2dat776(quotingGreatAm.Ins.Co.v.C.G.TateConst.,265 % # S.E.2d467,473(N.C.App.1980)).Weacknowledgethatattemptingtoprovewhatinformationtheinsurerwouldhavebeenabletodiscoverhadnoticebeenpromptlyprovidedwouldbedifficultforeitherparty.SeeComment,68Harv.L.Rev.at1438;  +p&) Jones,821S.W.2dat803;Brakeman,371A.2dat198;Campbell,384P.2dat157. -P(+ However,wearelesssympathetictotheinsuredinthisinstance,sincetheinsuredbearssoleresponsibilityforbreachingatermofthecontractthatwasintendedtopreservefairnesstotheinsurer. 2-1 Ї@& III.CONCLUSION    Insum,weoverruleCreasy,PhoenixCotton,andothercasesinthisState P  holdingthatprejudicetotheinsurerisirrelevanttowhetherforfeitureofaninsurancecontractresultsfromtheinsuredsbreachofanoticeprovision.Instead,theappropriateinquiryis:1)Didtheinsuredprovidetimelynoticeinaccordancewiththecontract?2)FFEDidtheinsuredcarryitsburdenofshowingthatitactedingoodfaith?3)EIfHGbGHInoIJI6tIsoJKtK,didtheinsuredcarryitsburdenofprovingthattheinsurerwasnotprejudicedbythedelay?Thisstandardshallapplyto(1)allcasestriedorretriedafterthedateofthisopinion,and(2)allcasespendingonappealinwhichtheprejudiceissuewasraisedinthetrialcourt.#XXX X>u# X>XXXԛ Consequently,thedecisionsofthelowercourtsgrantingsummaryjudgmenttoGEICOareBisBreversed.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfindingsconsistentwiththisopinion.CostsoftheappealaretaxedequallytoAlcazarandGEICO.#XXX X>#   CC  0      8 _____________________________________CC  0      8 FrankF.Drowota,III,  0      8 JusticeCC CONCUR: CCAnderson,C.J. +'* Birch,Holder,Barker,J.J.