given.”. (UF No. 6; Sarris Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Notice provisions in “claims made” policies are strictly construed because notice determines if coverage is available under such policies. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, PA. v. Continisio, 17 F.3d 62, 69 (3d Cir.1994); FDIC v. Barham, 995 F.2d 600, 604 n. 9 (5th Cir.1993). As applied to this case, notice of the alleged wrongful act and written notice to the insurer may ultimately dictate which policy must respond in this matter. To be clear, the inquiry at this point is not whether the Summons with Notice constituted a “claim” — it did not — but whether the “insured first became aware of any specific wrongful act” with the receipt of the Summons with Notice on or about April 2, 2008. If so, did the insured give writte F.3d 110, 113 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). While the Summons with Notice provided a list
holding that where the policy names only the directors or officers as insured the proceeds are not property of the estate holding that the insurer is not bound by acts of the agent which are beyond the scope of his authority when the insured has notice of the limitations upon an agents authority or when the circumstances are sufficient to suggest that an inquiry should be made as to such limitations holding that insured informing insurer that it had received a cease and desist order was insufficient notice because it did not detail the particular subsidiary involved the particular agents officers or directors involved the time period during which the events occurred the identity of potential claimants and the specific unsound practices made the basis of the order holding that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured because the allegations of the initial complaint did not allege facts which would bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy holding despite a reservation of rights that when the insurer provides a defense to its insured the insured has no right to interfere with the insurers control of the defense and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant without the consent of the insurer is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer