notify Midwest of Black’s August 22, 1992, injury until April 7, 1994. Midwest contends that this notice was untimely under the notice provisions in its policy and that EAHC has violated the terms of that policy. Thus, Midwest contends that because of what it says was late notice of a claim, it is not liable under its insurance policy to indemnify EAHC in relation to Black’s workers’ compensation claim. ii. In its order certifying a question to this Court, the federal district court explained its view of current Alabama law on this topic: “The Alabama Supreme Court repeatedly held that an insurer need not plead or prove prejudice as a condition for a finding of late notice as a bar to coverage. See, e.g., Correll v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies, 529 So.2d 1006, 1008-1009 (Ala.1988) (<HOLDING>); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v.
holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding the plaintiffs here can take nothing from the absence of the burden upon the insurance company to prove prejudice holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence holding that the burden rests upon the party seeking benefits to prove the injury sustained was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and the rule of liberal construction is not a substitute for the claimants burden of establishing his claim by a preponderance of the evidence holding that even if an insurance broker is the agent of the insurance company for purposes of soliciting and procuring the policy that would not necessarily make the broker the agent of the insurance company for the purpose of receiving notice of suits and claims