Category: Claims handling · Reviewed by Chrissie Anderson, Client Executive · Last reviewed 2026-06-11
A late-notified claim is one notified to the insurer after the period required by the policy’s claims condition — engaging detailed analysis under the Insurance Act 2015 section 11 on whether late notification can be relied on as a reason to refuse cover.
Most policies require notification of any claim, circumstance or event within a defined period — “as soon as reasonably practicable”, “within 30 days”, “within 60 days”. Where the insured fails to meet that requirement, the insurer may consider whether the breach disentitles the insured to cover.
Before the Insurance Act 2015, late notification could be fatal to cover if the clause was drafted as a condition precedent. Section 11 of the Insurance Act 2015 changed this substantially: an insurer cannot refuse a claim for breach of a term aimed at reducing a particular risk where the breach could not have increased the risk of the loss that occurred.
The framework includes:
Section 11(1) defines a “term not relevant to the actual loss” as one which “would have the effect that compliance with it would tend to reduce the risk of one or more of the following: (a) loss of a particular kind, (b) loss at a particular location, (c) loss at a particular time.”
Section 11(3) provides that an insurer cannot rely on non-compliance with such a term to refuse a claim where the non-compliance could not have increased the risk of the loss that actually occurred.
Late notification typically falls within section 11. The notification requirement is aimed at allowing the insurer to investigate promptly; late notification does not increase the risk of the underlying loss occurring. Section 11 prevents the insurer relying on the breach unless the late notification can be shown to have increased the risk of the loss occurring (rare).
The analysis runs through three steps:
First, has there been a breach of the notification requirement? The clock starts when the insured (or its directors with authority) becomes aware of the claim or circumstance. Diab v Regent Insurance Co Ltd [2006] UKPC 29 and similar authorities provide guidance.
Second, was the breach material? Trivial delays may not engage the clause; substantial delays clearly do.
Third, can the insurer rely on the breach? Section 11 prevents reliance unless the breach increased the risk of the loss. The insurer must demonstrate that the late notification had a material effect on the loss outcome — for example, that prompt notification would have allowed mitigation steps that would have reduced the loss.
In practice, section 11 has made late notification a much weaker defence for insurers than it was pre-2015. Most late notifications now do not result in declined cover; instead, they may result in:
For insurers, the practical defence has shifted to fraud and prejudice arguments. A genuinely fraudulent late notification (e.g., to attempt to bring a claim within a more favourable policy period) may engage other defences. A late notification that has caused real prejudice (e.g., loss of evidence, missed opportunity to settle on better terms) may allow the insurer to claim damages.
For policyholders, late notification is reduced from a potentially fatal issue to a procedural one, subject to careful documentation of when knowledge arose and what was notified when.
“Genuine late notification” — the insured simply failed to notify in time.
“Strategic late notification” — the insured delayed notification in the hope that the matter would resolve without insurer involvement.
“Knowledge dispute late notification” — disagreement about when the insured first knew of the claim or circumstance.
“Partial late notification” — some elements notified in time, others late.
“Multi-year late notification” — relevant in claims-made cover, where late notification may push the claim into a different policy year.
A solicitors firm became aware in October 2025 of a complaint from a former client about a 2023 conveyance. The firm’s risk management team considered the complaint and decided it lacked merit. No notification to the firm’s PI insurer was made. In April 2026 the former client issued a letter before action. The firm notified its insurer the same day — but the policy year of notification is now 2026-27, not 2025-26 (when the circumstance first arose).
The 2025-26 insurer is notified out of time. Section 11 analysis: the late notification did not increase the risk of the underlying loss; the conveyance was completed in 2023 with the same effect regardless of when notification was given to insurers. Section 11(3) prevents the 2025-26 insurer relying on the late notification to refuse cover.
The 2025-26 insurer’s coverage opinion accepts the position. Cover attaches under the 2025-26 policy year despite the technical late notification, because section 11 prevents reliance on the notification condition.
The 2026-27 insurer is also notified because the formal claim was made during its policy year. The 2026-27 wording’s circumstance-notification provision and other-insurance provision are analysed to determine which policy responds; counsel concludes the 2025-26 policy responds primarily under the circumstance-first-known rule, with the 2026-27 policy not engaged.
If section 11 had not applied (a wording aimed at reducing the actual risk, hypothetically), the position would have been worse for the policyholder.
By Matt Bartlett, Director, on 2026-06-11. Next review: 2026-12-11.
This entry is part of the Apex Insurance Wiki. Last reviewed by Matt Bartlett on 2026-06-11. Apex Insurance Brokers Limited, FCA FRN 724952, Companies House 07014570. Not regulated advice — consult your broker on your specific position.
Apex Insurance Brokers serves UK professional services firms and commercial businesses. Call 0117 325 0027, email hello@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk, or request a quotation.
Get a quote