Background:

• The appellants were insured under three professional liability policies, with the second excess policy requiring claims to be both made and reported within the policy period (Jan 1, 2018 - Jan 1, 2019).
• The appellants failed to report a claim within the policy period due to an error by their broker, who reported it in March 2021.

Issue:

• Whether relief from forfeiture is available despite the late reporting.

Lower Court Decision:

• The application judge ruled the second excess policy was a "claims made and reported" policy. Failure to report within the policy period breached a condition precedent to coverage, making relief from forfeiture unavailable.

Appeal:

• The appellants argued the judge erred in denying relief from forfeiture.

Court of Appeal Decision:

• The court upheld the lower court's decision, confirming that for "claims made and reported" policies, reporting within the policy period is a condition precedent to coverage.
• The court emphasized that altering this condition would distort the contract terms.
• Even if relief were available, the appellants suffered no prejudice due to their broker's admitted negligence.

Conclusion:

• The appeal was dismissed, with the appellants ordered to pay the respondents' costs of $28,000.

Key Points:

• Claims Made and Reported Policy: Coverage requires claims to be both made and reported within the policy period.
• Condition Precedent: Failure to comply results in non-coverage, and relief from forfeiture is not applicable.