In effect defendants are asserting that even though they would have approved the assignment as a matter of course, they should have the arbitrary right to disapprove it when the only apparent reason for doing so is that an intervening loss occurred. The arbitrary refusal of consent in such circumstances would be inconsistent with the insurer’s duty of good faith.^{3<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n}

So, the takeaway from this decision is that unless an insurer can demonstrate prejudice by the late notice, it cannot avoid liability by solely relying on the policy’s assignment language providing that the assignment is invalid without written consent on the insurer.<\/p>\n