on a presumption of prejudice if they can show that their insureds failed to give prompt notice of a claim. See Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 90 N.Y.2d 433, 661 N.Y.S.2d 584, 684 N.E.2d 14, 16-17 (1997). Unigard Sec. Ins. Co., Inc. v. N. River Ins. Co., 79 N.Y.2d 576, 584 N.Y.S.2d 290, 594 N.E.2d 571, 573 (1992) (“It is settled New York law that the notice provision for a primary insurer operates as a condition precedent and that the insurer need not show prejudice to rely on the defens v. 1149(PKL), 1994 WL 163700, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 1994) (vacated on other grounds) (allowing indemnitor who was “functioning analogously to a primary insurer” the benefit of the no prejudice rule), with Smurfit Newsprint Corp. v. Se. Paper Mfg. Co., 368 F.3d 944, 952-53 (7th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Red Ball, 947 F.Supp. at 123 (declining to
holding that a tortfeasor seeking contribution and indemnification is required to follow the 120day notice provision in the cda and not the 60day notice provision holding that the district court improperly extended new yorks noprejudice rule to the notice for indemnification provisions in an asset purchase agreement holding that statutory notice provisions for notice of default and opportunity to cure were waived by provisions of note as to one obligor though provisions applied to coobligor who used property as residence recognizing district court application of the same rule holding that the district court improperly limited the claims according to the preferred embodiment