would be effectively limited to the narrow set of cases in which Amtrak determined that its exposure might rea sonably exceed contractual thresholds. Such a limitation cannot be found in the policies. The contested policies, in short, unambiguously obligated Amtrak to notify its excess insurers of the Missouri suit upon receipt of the January 21, 1999 settlement demand. The railroad’s post-verdict September 27, 1999 notification of the claim, moreover, was by no means “immediate.” (See Art. Ill, ¶ 3ii); see also Pl.’s Opp’n at 33^13 (omitting from its discussion of Condition 3ii) any suggestion that its September notice was “immediate” relative to the January settlement demand).) See also Greycoat Hanover F Street Ltd. P’ship v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 657 A.2d 764, 769 (D.C.1995) (<HOLDING>). Having decided that plaintiff failed to
holding that insurer that waited five months after being informed of occurrence and two months after being informed of suit against insured to deliver reservation of rights letter waived its noncoverage defense holding that insured may recover from its insurer any attorney fees incurred in successfully attempting to force the insurer to defend an action against the insured holding that an insured waited unreasonably long in first notifying an insurer of a lawsuit five months after its filing holding that the insurer was estopped from asserting coverage defenses when it waited to file a declaratory action until 10 months after it had notice of the claim and several months after it had notice of a potential settlement of the underlying litigation holding that there is an actual controversy between an insurer and the party injured by the insured