A.2d 872 (1962) (stating that a denial of liability and refusal to defend releases insured from provision prohibiting settlement of claims without insurer's consent). In other words, when an insurer wrongfully refuses to defend, any attorneys’ fees thereafter incurred by the insured are not incurred voluntarily. 9 . Courts in other jurisdictions have used an actual prejudice analysis in holding that an insurer is liable for pre-notice defense costs. See TPLC, Inc. v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 1484, 1493 (10th Cir.1995) (“in the absence of a showing of prejudice, the insurer’s duty to defend includes the duty to reimburse for reasonable costs of defense incurred prior to notice, as well as for subsequent defense costs”); Peavey Co. v. M/V ANPA, 971 F.2d 1168, 1178 (5th Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>); Rovira v. LaGoDa, Inc., 551 So.2d 790, 794-95
holding that insurer is liable for prenotice expenses because it did not show actual prejudice by delay and relied on prenotice investigation without conducting one of its own holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply laches where the only prejudice shown by the government was attributable to its own delay rather than to that of the movant holding that a 103day delay in payment did not amount to bad faith because the carrier gave a reasonable explanation for the delay in payment it was continuing its investigation holding jury could have found the insurer was unreasonable in failing to pay claims it received after the original injury viewing the evidence and its inferences in light most favorable to insured notwithstanding insurer relied upon lack of definitive prior case law and its own attorneys advice to deny a claim for medical expenses holding that in light of evidence that the insurer would have denied coverage even if it had received suit papers on a timely basis the insurer could not show prejudice