In its request for summary determination, Avaya argued that Charter failed to comply with the contractual indemnification obligation to “promptly notify Avaya of a claim or lawsuit” for which compensation had been sought. The complaint was served on Charter on September 5, 2006, but Charter did not provide a copy to Avaya until July 2, 2007. Because it immediately seems to promise more than it can keep, you should omit it from your contracts for the purposes of obligations and conditions. Instead, use quickly. If you want a more demanding standard than the prompt, specify a limit in days. Or combine the two standards – immediately, but in no case later than X days after.. Depending on the terms of your landlord`s insurance policy, there are certain post-loss conditions or obligations that you must meet in order to obtain coverage for a loss. These terms and conditions are usually contained in the paragraph “Your obligations after loss” under “SECTION I – CONDITIONS”. Failure to materially comply or comply with these obligations after a loss may result in the rejection of your insurance claim. Such an “obligation after loss” is the obligation to “notify immediately”. The net effect is that, for the purposes of the quick and immediate drafting of the contract, it means the same thing. (Obviously, the same goes for fast, as soon as possible, immediately and the like, as well as for prompt and immediate adjectives.) Justice Vaughn stated that he “agrees with the Charter that the sentence is subject to interpretation [promptly] and that the interpretation may be influenced by the facts and circumstances that accompany it.” The current issue of Black`s Law Dictionary does not include an entry for prompt, but the sixth edition, published in 1990, stated that the meaning of prompt “depends largely on the facts in all cases, because what is `prompt` in one situation cannot be considered as such in other circumstances or conditions” What is an instant notification? First of all, there is no definition of “prompt” in your insurance policy, so don`t look for it. Second, the Florida courts have also refused to define the term prompt; However, it is common knowledge that “prompt” does not mean immediate notification.
Instead, the courts have determined that notification should be made within a reasonable time, taking into account all the facts of a particular case. There are several circumstances in which “immediate” notification of loss may not be possible: And the current edition of Black`s Law Dictionary says that immediate funds occur without delay. Again, the sixth edition offers a more comprehensive entry, which is immediately defined as “without delay; direct; within a reasonable time in the circumstances of the case; immediately and with due diligence. » Fast – what is the difference between fast and immediate? I bet what comes to mind is the idea that immediate and faster action is needed to do it immediately. While the use of “prompt” is common in contracts, the Avaya case is just one example of how it may not mean what you think it means. Terms such as “prompt” or “sufficient time” are vague enough to be open to interpretation. Therefore, if you want to avoid confusion, litigation and even worse, disputes about what these terms mean, it is advisable to define them in your contract. For example, a sentence such as “prompt notification is required, but in no case more than 20 days after receipt of a complaint”. But what about the Morgan Guaranty case? This is the one mentioned above in this post – the one in which the court stated that it did not mean immediately, but within a reasonable time. Well, this is a case that was quickly built, not immediately, so it has no real value as support for the proposal, which is not immediately subject to an adequacy standard. After all, don`t worry if for some reason you haven`t made an immediate notification. You may still be able to pay for damage to your home if failure to immediately notify the insurance company`s investigation did not affect it. Whether the insurance company was actually biased is a question that a jury must decide.
Not your insurance company. The idea that immediate and faster action is needed, which happens immediately, recalls our old friend, the supposed distinction between best and reasonable efforts. In both cases, an untenable distinction persists because the authors have not recognized how an adequacy standard serves to limit the scope of the apparently more demanding standard. The use of Sofort in the language of discretion raises another question. The question is not whether you need the immediate versus the prompt, but whether you need it immediately at all. To learn a little more about this, see my comments in response to comments from readers Michael and Mike.
