(13th ed.2006) (collecting cases). In the District of Columbia, however, “where compliance with notice provisions is a contractual precondition to coverage, a failure to timely notify releases the insurer from liability.” Greycoat Hanover F Street Ltd. P’ship, 657 A.2d at 768 (contrasting District of Columbia law to that of Maryland, which “is more favorable to an insured on the issue of notice in that it requires that the insurer show actual prejudice before it may assert a defense of late notice”); Diamond Service Co., Inc. v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co., 476 A.2d 648, 652 (D.C.1984) (notice provisions are “of the essence” of insurance contracts and are “given effect in the interest of the public as well as the insurer”); Greenway v. Selected Risks Ins. Co., 307 A.2d 753, 756 (D.C.1973) (<HOLDING>). The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, in
holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense holding that prejudice is not an element to be considered in regard to the failure to give mandated statutory notice holding that prejudice or injury is a necessary element of standing holding that actual prejudice is not a necessary element of an insurers untimely notice defense