the cornerstone principle that “insurance is fundamentally based on contingent risks which may or may not occur.” Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 607 N.E.2d 1204, 1210 (Ill. 1992). Thus, the known-loss rule protects insurers from unwittingly insuring losses that have already occurred, as opposed to risks of loss, see Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 997 F.2d 172, 179 (6th Cir. 1993) (“Because insurance policies ... are designed to insure against fortuities, a fraud is worked when they are misused to insure a certainty”), and the exception for losses known to the insurer protects insureds by resolving the question of coverage in favor of the insured, see N. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Rossitto, 171 Vt. 580, 582, 762 A.2d 861, 864 (2000) (mem.) (<HOLDING>). Here, neither of those concerns is present
holding that insurers failure to deny existence of insurance coverage under policy at issue was to admit that coverage existed holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage recognizing policy of this court to favor complete coverage when interpreting insurance contracts holding that new yorks public policy does not bar insurance coverage for disparate impact employment discrimination but noting that the state of new york insurance department has stated that it is against public policy to provide insurance coverage for intentional acts of discrimination recognizing that a court must balance the policy in favor of hearing a litigants claims on the merits with the policy in favor of finality