HARRELL, J.

This case demands that we revisit Maryland's insurance contract claim notice-prejudice jurisprudence, a body of law that has laid dormant largely since T.H.E. Insurance Co. v. P.T.P. Inc., 331 Md. 406, 628 A.2d 223 (1993). As the trial judge observed, this involves "quite a workout." Sherwood Brands, Inc. ("Sherwood") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County—granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Great American Insurance Company ("Great American")—concluding that Great American acted properly in denying coverage under a third-party liability policy it issued Sherwood because Sherwood neglected to notify Great American of claims made against Sherwood within ninety days of the expiration of the policy period, as the policy required. Great American's entitlement to judgment was not dependent on it demonstrating how it may have been prejudiced by Sherwood's tardy notice.

We hold that, for reasons to be explained more fully infra, pursuant to Maryland Code (1997, 2006 Repl.Vol.), Insurance Article § 19-110 ("Disclaimers of coverage on liability policies"), which provides that "[a]n insurer may disclaim coverage on a liability insurance policy on the ground that the insured . . . has breached the policy . . . by not giving the insurer required notice only if the insurer establishes. . . that the lack of . . . notice has resulted in actual prejudice to the insurer," Great American is required to demonstrate how it was prejudiced by Sherwood's late-bestowed notice. This is so notwithstanding that the policy at issue is a "claims-made policy." Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and remand the case to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Sherwood,1 a North Carolina corporation with its principal office in Rockville, Maryland, is a manufacturer of confections and specialty gifts. Great American issued Sherwood a series of annual "Directors', Officers', Insured Entity and Employment Practices Liability Insurance" policies, the most relevant one of which (Policy DOL5741758) was effective 1 May 2007 to 1 May 2008 (the "Policy"). Section I of the Policy, "Insuring Agreements," provides:

Section III of the Policy, "Definitions," provides:

Finally, Section VIII, "Notice of Claim," provides, in pertinent part:

On 11 December 2007, one Gerald D. Koelsch filed claims against Sherwood and its subsidiaries with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, alleging breach of contract, wrongful termination, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, fraudulent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.2 He filed a related complaint in the Plymouth County (Massachusetts) Superior Court on 28 March 2008 against Sherwood and its subsidiaries, asserting similar counts and related statutory violations.3 We treat as undisputed for the purposes of this opinion that both of these actions were filed and served on Sherwood during the time period that the 2007-08 Policy was in effect.4 Sherwood did not notify Great American of the Koelsch claims until 27 October 2008, a date concededly greater than ninety days after the expiration date of the Policy (1 May 2008).

On 26 November 2008, Barbara Bryan ("Bryan"), a Senior Claims Attorney with Great American, wrote to Sherwood, explaining why the insurer denied coverage for the Koelsch claim. Although the Massachusetts lawsuit "constitutes an action as defined under the policy" and the "Claim made date is . . . within the May 1, 2007— May 1, 2008 Policy Period," Bryan pointed to Section VIII.A. of the policy—the ninety-day notice requirement—and explained that, because the Policy ended on 1 May 2008 and Great American did not receive notice of the suit until 27 October 2008, "there is no coverage for this Claim under the policy."

Meanwhile, across the globe, on 17 October 2007, Plastic Magen Ltd. and Plasto Kit Ltd. filed suit (unrelated to the Koelsch suit) against Sherwood, its officers, and other entities in the Tel-Aviv Jaffo (Israel) District Court, alleging breach of contract, "deceit and conspiracy," "lack of good faith," "illegal enrichment process," "false presentation," and other counts.5 The parties to the present case agree that service of process on Sherwood was made in the Israeli suit sometime in December 2007, and thus it appears undisputed that notice of this action was filed against and served on Sherwood during the effective period of the 2007-08 Policy. Sherwood notified Great American of this suit on 6 November 2008, a date conceded again to be greater than ninety days following the expiration date of the 2007-08 Policy.

Bryan wrote again to Sherwood, on 16 December 2008, explaining the insurer's denial of coverage of the claim represented by the Israeli lawsuit. As with the Massachusetts suit, Great American conceded that the Israeli lawsuit is a "Claim made within the May 1, 2007—May 1, 2008 Policy Period," but denied coverage because notice to Great American of the claim was not given until 6 November 2008, more than ninety days after the end of the 2007-08 Policy. Bryan continued:

On 10 February 2009, Sherwood, its officers and subsidiaries filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, a "Complaint for Breach of Contract and Declaratory Relief" against Great American, alleging that the Massachusetts and Israeli actions were "claims" under the 2007-08 Policy and Great American breached the Policy when it "refused to pay any losses Plaintiffs may or are obligated to pay as a result of the lawsuit filed by Mr. Koelsch and the law suit filed by Plastic Magen Ltd. and Plasto Kit Ltd." Sherwood also averred, regarding the Massachusetts and Israeli actions, that Great American "has not been prejudiced by any alleged delay in notification. No relevant documents have been lost or destroyed. No known witnesses are missing. No evidence has been lost or destroyed. No adverse rulings have [been] obtained in the underlying suit for wrongful termination." Accordingly, Sherwood requested the Circuit Court enter a judgment declaring that Great American "is obligated to pay all losses the Plaintiffs become legally obligated to pay in the underlying suit[s]" and that Sherwood "is obligated to pay all costs incurred in bringing this Complaint for Breach of Contract and Declaratory Relief. . . ." Joined with its complaint, Sherwood filed a motion for summary judgment, urging arguments similar to those it makes to this Court.7

In its answer, Great American denied that it breached the policies with Sherwood, and denied that the respective notices of the Massachusetts and Israeli actions were timely. Further, Great American tendered twenty affirmative defenses, only one of which is relevant to the present appeal: "Coverage for the Underlying Actions under the 2007[-08] Policy is barred due to [Sherwood's] failure to give written notice to Great American as soon as practicable and no later than within ninety (90) days after the end of the Policy Period." Shortly after filing its answer, on 22 May 2009, Great American filed an opposition to Sherwood's motion for summary judgment, and a cross-motion for summary judgment, advancing arguments similar to those it offers to this Court.

On 14 July 2009, the Circuit Court heard oral argument on the motions. Denying Sherwood's motion for summary judgment and granting Great American's cross-motion for summary judgment, the trial court explained:

Sherwood noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. On our initiative, we issued a writ of certiorari, Sherwood Brands v. Great American Ins., 415 Md. 114, 999 A.2d 179 (2010), before the intermediate appellate court decided the appeal, to consider "whether the lower court erred by ruling that [Great American] was not required by Section 19-110 of the [Maryland] Insurance Code to show actual prejudice in order to deny coverage based on the [Sherwood]'s failure to comply with the notice condition of the 2007[-08] insurance policy at issue. . . ."8

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"The standard of review of a trial court's grant of a motion for summary judgment on the law is de novo, that is, whether the trial court's legal conclusions were legally correct. Under this standard, we review the trial court's ruling on the law, considering the same material from the record and deciding the same legal issues as the circuit court." Messing v. Bank of America, N.A., 373 Md. 672, 684, 821 A.2d 22, 28 (2003) (internal citations omitted); see Tyler v. City of College Park, 415 Md. 475, 498, 3 A.3d 421, 434 (2010) ("Whether a circuit court's grant of summary judgment is proper in a particular case is a question of law, subject to a non-deferential review on appeal.").

ANALYSIS

I. Md.Code (1997, 2006 Repl.Vol.), Insurance Article § 19-110: Its Origin and Application

The first seed, leading ultimately to the development of Md.Code (1997, 2006 Repl. Vol.), Insurance Art., § 19-110, was sown in Watson v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 231 Md. 266, 189 A.2d 625 (1963). In Watson, the carrier issued an insurance policy to an individual, Watson, that "required the insured, as a condition precedent, to give written notice of an accident to the insurer `as soon as practicable' following an accident." Watson, 231 Md. at 269, 189 A.2d at 626. Watson was involved in an automobile accident on 5 March 1961, but did not notify the insurer until 8 April 1961. A few days later, the insurance company informed Watson that, "in view of the fact that prompt notice of the accident had not been given to it," it denied the claim. Watson, 231 Md. at 270, 189 A.2d at 626. On appeal, the insured argued "that the modern view which holds that the insurer must show actual prejudice in order to be relieved of its obligations under a policy is clearly the better view, and the one now being followed by a majority of jurisdictions." Watson, 231 Md. at 272, 189 A.2d at 627. The Court, rejecting Watson's argument that "even though the notice condition . . . involved is a condition precedent, it is unavailable to the Company as a denial of liability . . . unless the Company was prejudiced by the failure to give prompt notice," held that "[t]his contention is not in accord with the Maryland decisions, nor with the weight of authority elsewhere in the country," holding ultimately that, because the insured did not contest that he had not given notice "as soon as practicable," the insurer was within its rights to deny coverage. Id.; see Prince George's County v. Local Gov't Ins. Trust, 388 Md. 162, 181, 879 A.2d 81, 93 (2005) ("In Watson, we held that an insurer need not show prejudice in order to deny coverage to an insured who breached the notice provision of an insurance policy.").

The Legislature's response to Watson was prompt and decisive. At the legislative session immediately following Watson, the General Assembly enacted former Maryland Code (1957, 1972 Repl.Vol.), Article 48A, § 482. See Chapter 185 of the Acts of 1964; Local Gov't Ins. Trust, 388 Md. at 181, 879 A.2d at 92-93 ("In passing the statute, the Legislature apparently aimed to abrogate the common law rule as articulated in Watson. . . ."); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., Co. v. House, 315 Md. 328, 352, 554 A.2d 404, 416 (1989) ("Section 482. . . appears to have been enacted to remedy the harsh result of the Watson case.").9 Following a 1966 amendment,10 § 482 provided:

One commentator offered three potential reasons the General Assembly moved so quickly responding to Watson:

A Legal Process Analysis for a Statutory and Contractual Construction of Notice and Proof of Loss Insurance Disclaimers, 38 MD. L.REV. 299, 309-10 (1978).11

Chronologically, the next case shaping Maryland's modern notice-prejudice jurisprudence is House, supra. In House, an insurer issued a "physicians and surgeons professional liability policy" providing that "[a] claim is made on the date you first report an incident or injury to us or our agent." House, 315 Md. at 331, 554 A.2d at 405. House had a series of annual policies the last of which ended on 1 January 1986. See House, 315 Md. at 330, 554 A.2d at 405. Allegedly, House performed surgery on a patient and left part of a needle in her knee; St. Paul, however, declined to defend House, claiming that it did not receive notice of the claim until February 1986, after the policy had expired. See House, 315 Md. at 331, 554 A.2d at 405-06. "We granted certiorari. . . to determine whether § 482 applies when an insurer asserts that there is no coverage under a `claims made' policy because the claim was not made while the policy was in effect." House, 315 Md. at 330, 554 A.2d at 405. Ultimately, we declined to reach that question, holding instead that the "issue arises only if the policy here involved is construed as the insurer contends. . . . [but], we do not accept the policy construction on which the insurer's argument is premised." Id.12

Although the Court could not have known it at the time, in advancing Maryland's notice-prejudice jurisprudence, of greater significance in House was Chief Judge Robert C. Murphy's dissent, which was joined by Judges McAuliffe and Blackwell. The dissent began by disagreeing with the Majority opinion's conclusion that the policy was ambiguous as to when a claim was made; in his view, "[i]t is . . . clear that reporting is a prerequisite to coverage. . . ." House, 315 Md. at 342, 554 A.2d at 411 (Murphy, C.J., dissenting).13 The dissent proffered potential policy rationales for the adoption of approaches, like Maryland's, requiring insurers denying coverage of claims for reasons related to notice deficiencies to make a showing of prejudice. See House, 315 Md. at 345-47, 554 A.2d at 412-13. First, the dissent noted that many "courts have found that the strict contractual condition precedent approach creates a forfeiture," explaining that:

House, 315 Md. at 345, 554 A.2d at 413 (quoting Cooper v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 51 N.J. 86, 237 A.2d 870, 873-74 (1968)). Second, the dissent explained that another rationale "is based upon the purpose and function of the notice provision":

House, 315 Md. at 346-47, 554 A.2d at 413 (quoting Brakeman v. Potomac Ins. Co., 472 Pa. 66, 371 A.2d 193, 197 (1977)).

In addition to offering potential policy reasons undergirding the Legislature's passage of former § 482, Chief Judge Murphy explained the distinction between "occurrence" policies and "claims-made" policies.

House, 315 Md. at 349, 554 A.2d at 414 (quoting Stine v. Continental Casualty Co., 419 Mich. 89, 349 N.W.2d 127, 131 (1984)). Occurrence policies differ from claims-made policies, the latter of which are "of relatively recent origin and were developed primarily to deal with situations in which the negligent act is difficult to pinpoint and may have occurred over an extended period of time." House, 315 Md. at 349, 554 A.2d at 414. Regarding claims-made policies, we observed:

House, 315 Md. at 349-50, 554 A.2d at 414-15 (quoting Stine, 349 N.W.2d at 131).14 The dissent de-constructed claims-made policies even further, distinguishing between "pure" claims-made policy, and "reporting-type" claims-made policies:

House, 315 Md. at 350-51, 554 A.2d at 415.

Chief Judge Murphy applied the aforementioned principles to former § 482 and the insurance policy in House. First, the dissent disagreed with the majority's determination that the policy was ambiguous as to when a claim is made, concluding that "[i]t is . . . clear that reporting is a prerequisite to coverage. . . ." Regarding whether § 482 applied to the policy, Chief Judge Murphy explained that, although § 482 states that it applies to "any policy of liability insurance," the statute only "potentially applies to `any' liability insurer or policy," considering that "the statute [also] requires that the basis for the disclaimer or denial of coverage be that `the insured has breached the policy . . . by not giving the requisite notice to the insurer.'" House, 315 Md. at 355, 554 A.2d at 417 (emphasis in original). The dissent framed next the possibly penultimate or even dispositive question as whether § 482 applied to the policy in House: "The fundamental question now is whether, at the time [House] reported the . . . claim, there existed a contract between the parties, for one cannot breach a contract which is not in existence. . . ." House, 315 Md. at 355-56, 554 A.2d at 418 (emphasis added). As the dissent explained:

House, 315 Md. at 356, 554 A.2d at 418 (emphasis added).

For clarity purposes, we think it important to restate Chief Judge Murphy's "holdings," had he been writing for a majority of the Court at the time. First: In a "pure" claims-made policy, a claim is "made" when a claim (typically a lawsuit) is brought against the insured during the policy period. Second: In a "reporting-type" claims-made policy, a claim is "made" when, in addition to a claim being brought against the insured during the policy period, the insured reports or notifies the insurer of the claim made against the insured. Third: In a claims-made policy, there can be no breach of the policy where a claim is "made" after the policy's expiration (whether by (1) the insured having a claim filed against it during the policy period, as in a "pure" claims-made policy, or, (2) the insured having reported or notified the claim lodged against the insured to the insurer, as in a "reporting-type" claims-made policy) as one cannot "breach" a policy that is no longer in existence. Fourth: In a claims-made policy, then, where a claim is "made" after the policy expiration, § 482 does not apply to require the insurer to show prejudice, as the statute, on its face, applies only when an "insured has breached the policy."

The importance of the dissent in House became manifest four years later in T.H.E. Insurance Co. v. P.T.P. Inc., 331 Md. 406, 407, 628 A.2d 223, 223 (1993), in which "we appl[ied], in substance, the analysis presented in Chief Judge Murphy's dissent in House." In T.H.E., P.T.P., the owner of a go-kart track, was insured by T.H.E. under a claims-made comprehensive general liability policy running from 2 April 1987 to 2 April 1988, and which required P.T.P. to "see to it that [T.H.E.] receive written notice of the claim as soon as practicable," and that included a "Basic Extended Reporting Period" of sixty days. T.H.E., 331 Md. at 412, 628 A.2d at 225-26. Importantly, the policy provided that "[a] claim. . . seeking damages will be considered to have been made when written notice of such claim is received and recorded by [T.H.E.]. . . ." T.H.E., 331 Md. at 411-12, 628 A.2d at 225 (emphasis added). A patron was injured at P.T.P.'s track on 27 August 1987. On 6 June 1988—after the policy and the sixty-day extended reporting period expired—counsel for the injured patron made a claim against P.T.P. for damages. See T.H.E., 331 Md. at 408-09, 628 A.2d at 223-24. T.H.E., upon learning of the claim against P.T.P., denied coverage of the claim. See T.H.E., 331 Md. at 409, 628 A.2d at 224. P.T.P. filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, arguing that T.H.E. had a duty to defend and indemnify against the patron's claim. The Circuit Court declared that the T.H.E. policy obligated T.H.E. to defend the claim, considering that § 482 required T.H.E. to show it had been prejudiced by the late-delivered claim, which it failed to do. See id.

On appeal, T.H.E. argued that, because its policy with P.T.P. applied only to claims "first made against any insured during the policy period," or during the sixty-day extension, where the injured patron did not file a claim against P.T.P. until after the policy and extension period, there was simply no coverage for that claim. T.H.E., 331 Md. at 413, 628 A.2d at 226. In response, P.T.P., relying on § 482, argued that the statute required T.H.E. to show actual prejudice resulting from the delay. See id. The Court, through Judge Rodowsky, relying on the dissent in House and the "overwhelming weight of authority, measured both numerically and by persuasiveness," held:

T.H.E., 331 Md. at 415, 416 628 A.2d at 227, 228. Judge Rodowsky explained further that:

T.H.E., 331 Md. at 421, 628 A.2d at 230.16

Judges Eldridge and (now Chief Judge) Bell dissented in T.H.E. Their first quarrel with the Majority opinion was that it did "not distinguish between the provisions of a claims made policy which establish coverage and the provisions which require notice." The dissent explained:

T.H.E., 331 Md. at 425, 628 A.2d at 232.

II. Development of Notice-Prejudice Law After T.H.E.

In 1996, in codifying the Insurance Article of the Maryland Code, the Legislature recodified former § 482 to Maryland Code (1997, 2006 Repl.Vol.), Insurance Article § 19-110. See Chapter 11 of the Acts of 1996. After a minor 1997 revision,17 § 19-110 now provides:

The revisor's note to the 1996 codification notes that "[t]his section is new language derived without substantive change from former Art. 48A, § 482." Aside from moving the statute from former Article 48A to the Insurance Article, Maryland's notice-prejudice jurisprudence went dark largely after T.H.E.18 The growth of notice-prejudice jurisprudence nationwide, however, was not stunted similarly.19

It now may be said fairly that, although some courts have held that their respective notice-prejudice rules apply to claims-made policies, "a majority of courts that have addressed the issue have found that the prejudice requirement does not apply equally to claims-made policies." 1 JEFFREY E. THOMAS, NEW APPLEMAN ON INSURANCE LAW LIBRARY EDITION § 4.04[4][d][i] (2010). One further aspect of the jurisprudence developed in the nearly-two decades since T.H.E. is the distinction first mentioned in Maryland in Chief Judge Murphy's dissent in House, supra—namely, that of "pure" claims-made policies and "claims-made-and-reported" policies.

BECK, supra § 33.05; see Jones v. Lexington Manor Nursing Ctr., LLC, 480 F.Supp.2d 865, 868 (S.D.Miss.2006) (quoting Chicago Ins. Co. v. Western World Ins. Co., 1998 WL 51363, at *1, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1109, at *3 (N.D.Tex. Jan. 23, 1998)) ("Whereas [a claims-made policy] requires only that a claim be made within the policy period, [a claims-made-and-reported policy] also requires that the claim be reported to the insurance company within the policy period.").

Nationwide, courts' holdings regarding the applicability of notice-prejudice rules to claims-made-and-reported policies have been uniform; "[i]n those jurisdictions that have examined the distinction between claims-made and claims-made-and-reported policies, the courts have uniformly relieved the insurers from any requirement to prove prejudice under the latter form of coverage." 3 NEW APPLEMAN ON INSURANCE, supra § 20.01[7][b]. Applying Maryland law, the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland—relying on T.H.E.— held that § 19-110's provisions do not apply to claims-made-and-reporting policies. See Janjer Enters., Inc. v. Executive Risk Indem., Inc., 97 Fed.Appx. 410, 414 (4th Cir.2004) ("Maryland courts have held that `claims made and reporting' policies . . . are not subject to its prejudice requirement."); Maynard v. Westport Ins. Corp., 208 F.Supp.2d 568, 574 (D.Md.2002) (quoting The Rouse Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 991 F.Supp. 460, 465 (D.Md. 1998)) ("Section 19-110, however, only applies to true `claims made' policies. `Under Maryland law, the "actual prejudice" requirement of § 19-110 does not apply to a "claims made plus reporting" policy. . . .'").

III. The Present Case

Sherwood contends first that, under a plain reading of § 19-110, the statute applies to all liability policies, regardless of whether deemed "pure claims made policies" or "claims-made-and-reported policies." Further, Sherwood asserts that

Sherwood distinguishes the insurance policy in T.H.E.—ultimately held to be outside the scope of what is now § 19-110—from the Policy in the present case. That is, Sherwood contends that, although the policy in T.H.E. provided that a claim was not "made" until "written notice of [a] claim is received and recorded by us," the 2007-08 Policy provided that a "civil, criminal, administrative or arbitration proceeding made against any Insured" is made when suit is brought against Sherwood, not when it is reported to Great American.20 In the alternative, Sherwood avers that the 2007-08 Policy is ambiguous and thus, should be construed against Great American as the drafter. Finally, if necessary, Sherwood would have us overrule T.H.E.

Great American, on the other hand, urges that "Maryland courts consistently have held that the statute does not apply to `claims made plus reporting' policies, like the Great American Policy at issue here," citing Janjer, Maynard, and Rouse, supra. As the argument goes, Great American's policy is clearly a claims-made-and-reporting policy because it states expressly that, not only must a claim be made during the Policy period, but that notice of claim must be provided to it no later than ninety days after the expiration of the Policy. Such a conclusion, it continues, is "consistent with the overwhelming majority view of courts in other states, which have concluded that the prejudice rule does not apply to claims made plus reporting policies." Accordingly, Great American suggests that T.H.E. "fully supports and, in fact, dictates the trial court's decision in this case."

It would be simple—if not lazy—for us to conclude that T.H.E. held that § 19-110 does not apply to claims-made policies, pronounce the Policy a claims-made policy, and move on to the next case. We decline to follow that path. T.H.E. is not dispositive wholly of the present case. Further, it would be simple to focus on the portion of the Policy requiring Sherwood to give notice "as soon as practicable, but in no event later than ninety (90) days after the end of the Policy Period," declare the Policy a "claims-made-and-reported" policy, and jump on the bandwagon of other jurisdictions that decline uniformly to extend notice-prejudice rules to claims-made-and-reported policies. But no, we shall take the path less traveled. Our emphasis should not be on other jurisdictions' treatment of claims-made and claims-made-and-reported policies vis à vis their respective notice-prejudice rules because most of those cases did not confront or construe a statute like Maryland's. Thus, our emphasis must be on the text of, and policies underlying, § 19-110.

As noted, T.H.E. is not dispositive of the issue before us. The Court in T.H.E. was careful to circumscribe its holding by stating that "[i]t would be an incorrect oversimplification to express the issue here to be whether § 482 applies at all to claims made policies." T.H.E., 331 Md. at 414 n. 7, 628 A.2d at 226 n. 7 (emphasis added).21 One reading of T.H.E., then, is that it limited its holding to stating that § 482 "does not extend coverage under claims-made policies to include claims made after the policy expires," but said nothing about a situation in which claims are made against the insured before the expiration date of the policy (as in the present case).22 Wherthey, supra, at 956 (emphasis added). Further, T.H.E. "addressed only one factual situation under a rather ambiguous policy, leaving important issues unresolved." Wherthey, supra, at 958. As noted by one commentator:

Wherthey, supra, at 959. The facts of the present case are distinguishable from those in T.H.E., considering that it is undisputed that "the date the injured party presents a claim against the insured"— here, the Massachusetts and Israeli actions —was within the Policy coverage period,23 whereas, in T.H.E., it was not. Accordingly, T.H.E. does not control wholly the present case.

To the extent the parties attempt to squeeze a square peg—that is, Maryland's notice-prejudice statute, as embodied in § 19-110, and our jurisprudence—into a round hole—that is, the notice-prejudice jurisprudence of other states and jurisdictions —they are unpersuasive. See Bozman v. Bozman, 376 Md. 461, 490, 830 A.2d 450, 467 (2003) ("[D]ecisions of our sister jurisdictions are not binding on this Court and ought not dictate the course of jurisprudence in the State of Maryland."). Of the more than three-dozen states adopting a notice-prejudice rule, see Local Gov't Ins. Trust, 388 Md. at 184, 879 A.2d at 94, it appears that only two did so legislatively, as Maryland has.24 See MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 175, § 112 (2010);25 WIS. STAT. § 631.81 (2010)26; see generally Charles C. Marvel, Annotation, Modern Status of Rules Requiring Liability Insurer to Show Prejudice to Escape Liability Because of Insured's Failure or Delay in Giving Notice of Claim, etc., or with Respect to Forwarding Suit Papers, 32 A.L.R.4TH 141 (1984). Further, neither the Massachusetts nor the Wisconsin statutes require an insured's failure to abide by a policy's notice provisions to constitute a breach of the policy before those statutes apply, as Maryland's does. As we will see infra, this concept is crucial to the outcome of this case.

We turn to the text of, and the policies underlying, § 19-110. Section 19-110 begins by stating that "[a]n insurer may disclaim coverage . . . on the ground that the insured . . . has breached the policy. . . ." Accordingly, in order for § 19-110 to be in play, the insured must breach the insurance policy "by failing to cooperate with the insurer or by not giving the insurer required notice."27 See House, 315 Md. at 355, 554 A.2d at 417 (stating that, because the statute requires the insured to have "breached the policy," the statute only "potentially applies to `any' liability insurer or policy") (emphasis in original). Central to whether § 19-110 applies to require Great American to show that it was prejudiced by Sherwood's late-delivered notice is determining whether, in giving Great American notice more than ninety days after the expiration date of the 2007-08 Policy, Sherwood "breached the policy."28 If the notice provisions of the 2007-08 Policy are "conditions precedent" to coverage, then Sherwood does not "breach the policy" by failing to obey the notice provisions; the nonoccurrence of a condition precedent does not constitute a breach, it merely relieves the other party from performing under the contract/policy. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 225 (1981) ("Non-occurrence of a condition is not a breach by a party unless he is under a duty that the condition occur."); 8 CATHERINE M.A. MCCAULIFF, CORBIN ON CONTRACTS § 30.13 (Rev. ed. 1999) ("If [a] condition consists of a personal action, it may properly be said not to be performed; but non-performance is not a breach of contract unless the person promised to render the performance—to perform the condition."). On the other hand, if the notice provisions are deemed covenants, Sherwood's failure to give Great American notice no later than ninety days after the expiration date of the 2007-08 Policy would constitute a "breach of the policy," such that § 19-110 would apply to require Great American to show that it was prejudiced by Sherwood's late-delivered notice.

To be sure, the "Notice of Claim" section of the Policy begins by stating that giving requisite notice is a "condition precedent to [Sherwood's] rights under this Policy." If we treat them as such, Sherwood's failure to give notice timely to Great American would be the non-occurrence of a condition, and not a breach. This language—explicit and unequivocal as it may be—does not save the day for Great American when considering the purpose and effect of § 19-110. "[T]he general rule followed by courts throughout the country and . . . certainly the rule followed by this Court prior to 1966" was that

Sherwood Brands, 347 Md. at 41, 698 A.2d at 1082; see Lowitt and Harry Cohen Ins. Agency v. Pearsall Chem. Corp. of Md., 242 Md. 245, 259, 219 A.2d 67, 76 (1966) (citing Watson, supra, for the proposition that "[t]he general rule is that a provision in an insurance policy requiring notice by the insured to the insurer as soon as practicable, when it is made a condition precedent, must be complied with in order to obligate the insurer"); T.H.E., 331 Md. at 414, 628 A.2d at 227 ("Watson applied a strict condition precedent analysis to the insured's obligation to give notice of an accident under an . . . automobile liability policy."). Former § 428 was enacted effectively to overrule Watson, discard the strict condition-precedent approach, and "make[] policy provisions requiring notice to, and cooperation with, the insurer covenants and not conditions." Sherwood Brands, 347 Md. at 42, 698 A.2d at 1082 (quoting House, 315 Md. at 332, 554 A.2d at 406) (emphasis added). Therefore, notwithstanding that Great American labeled the notice provisions in the Policy as conditions precedent to coverage, § 19-110 mandates that the notice provisions of the Policy be treated as covenants, not conditions. By not giving notice to Great American within the time frame stated in the notice provisions, Sherwood "breached the policy . . . by not giving the insurer required notice" as provided in § 19-110, and, thus, the statute applies to require Great American to show how it was prejudiced by Sherwood's late-delivered notice in investigating, settling, or defending of the Massachusetts and Israeli actions.

This conclusion is consistent entirely with T.H.E.29 In T.H.E., the policy provided that "[t]his insurance applies . . . if a claim for damages . . . is first made against any insured during the policy period." T.H.E., 331 Md. at 411, 628 A.2d at 225. Thus, a claim being "made" within the policy period was the functional equivalent of a condition precedent to coverage; if a claim was not made during the policy period, the notice provisions did not come into play, as the insurer was under no obligation to provide coverage for the claim. The facts were such in T.H.E. that the suit was not filed against P.T.P. (the insured) until after the expiration of the policy. See T.H.E., 331 Md. at 413, 628 A.2d at 226. The suit not being filed until after the expiration of the policy was not a "breach" of the policy, but rather, the non-occurrence of a condition precedent, i.e., that a claim be "made" during the policy period. In the absence of a breach of the policy, as required by the statute, we were correct to hold that former § 482 did not apply to require T.H.E. to prove that it was prejudiced by the late-delivered notice. In the present case, this condition precedent—that a claim be "made" during the policy period—was satisfied, as it is undisputed that both the Massachusetts and Israeli actions were filed before the expiration of the Policy, putting the present case at odds, in this respect, with T.H.E. Because the two suits were filed against, and service made upon, Sherwood before expiration of the Policy, the notice provision—treated, under the statute, as a covenant and not a condition—triggers, and ultimately was breached by Sherwood. Accordingly, Sherwood has "breached the policy" in the present case, invoking § 19-110, and requiring Great American to demonstrate prejudice.30

We hold that § 19-110 does not apply, as was the case in T.H.E., to claims-made policies in which the act triggering coverage—usually notice of a claim or suit being filed against and served upon an insured under third-party liability policies —does not occur until after the expiration of the liability policy, as this non-occurrence of the condition precedent to coverage is not a "breach of the policy," as required by the statute. On the other hand, we hold that § 19-110 does apply, as is the case at present, to claims-made policies in which the act triggering coverage occurs during the policy period, but the insured does not comply strictly with the policy's notice provisions. In the latter situation, § 19-110 mandates that notice provisions be treated as covenants, such that failure to abide by them constitutes a breach of the policy sufficient for the statute to require the disclaiming insurer to prove prejudice.

Lest one think that this opinion places Maryland's jurisprudence at odds with the majority of other jurisdictions to decide a similar question, we think it important to emphasize that Maryland's notice-prejudice jurisprudence was "at odds" with most other jurisdictions' jurisprudence well before the filing of this opinion. As noted supra, of the more than three-dozen states adopting a notice-prejudice rule, we are aware of only two other states that did so legislatively—Massachusetts and Wisconsin.31 Further, neither the Massachusetts nor the Wisconsin statutes require a breach of the policy as a pre-condition to the applicability of their respective statutes. Ultimately, we are guided only—to the exclusion of other states' notice-prejudice jurisprudence—by the text of, and the policies underlying, § 19-110. Of course, "[i]f the General Assembly did not so intend, it can amend or repeal the statute." Ali v. CIT Tech. Fin. Servs., 188 Md.App. 269, 287, 981 A.2d 759, 769 (2009), aff'd, 416 Md. 249, 6 A.3d 890 (2010).

As explained supra, at note 7, Sherwood, in its motion for summary judgment, argued alternatively that, regardless of whether notice was proper under the 2007-08 Policy, "the 2008[-09] Policy defines the term claim in terms of when a complaint is served on an insured. As the underlying suit papers were served on Sherwood during the 2008[-09] Policy Period, notice was timely" under the 2008-09 Policy. In granting Great American's cross-motion for summary judgment and denying Sherwood's motion for summary judgment, the trial court did not address whether notice was timely under the 2008-09 Policy. Because Sherwood prevails here on the question actually decided by the Circuit Court, we shall not reach Sherwood's alternative argument. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and remand to that court for further proceedings.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY VACATED. CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS TO BE PAID BY GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY.