(“Waiver refers to a party’s intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Paulson & Nace does not contend that Chicago Insurance had actual knowledge of its known risk defense prior to November 2011, but rather argues that this is irrelevant. Appellants’ Br. 28-29. The law firm asserts that the relevant date is March 2010, when Chicago Insurance received documents that contained the correct dates of the medical malpractice proceedings. Thus, according to Paulson & Nace, Chicago Insurance had constructive knowledge of its defense nearly two years before invoking it. There may be instances under D.C. law in which constructive knowledge suffices to result in waiver. See, e.g., Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Govan, 451 A.2d 884, 886 (D.C.1982) (<HOLDING>). But this is not such a case. Paulson & Nace
holding that the insureds liability has been established by the settlement and the insurer may not later relitigate the issue holding that an agreement between insurer and insureds whereby insurer reimbursed insureds for costs of providing insurers administrative services did not violate antirebate statutes where agreements were not offered as an inducement to purchase insurance and reimbursements were reasonable in comparison to services rendered holding that an insurer had constructive knowledge of insureds driving history where the insurer possessed actual knowledge that the insured had misrepresented her driving record on her insurance application and where a reasonable inquiry would have revealed the insureds true driving record holding that insureds demand to insurer was liquidated when insurer did not point to any evidence at trial in support of its contention that damages were disputed holding that insured may recover attorneys fees from insurer where insurer acts in bad faith