clauses resulted in actual prejudice. 463 N.E.2d 257, 265-66 (Ind.1984). When an insured fails to provide its insurer with timely notice of an occurrence, we apply a two-part test. First, we inquire whether the insured notified the insurer within a reasonable amount of timé. Second, we determine whether the insurer suffered prejudice as a result of the delay. If notice was not tendered in a reasonable amount of time, there is a rebuttable presumption that the insurer was prejudiced. Id. at 266. Other jurisdictions have held that an insured can rebut this presumption of prejudice regarding late notice by showing that the insurance company would have denied coverage on unrelated grounds even if the notice had been timely. In Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Bradley C d 842, 851 (N.D.Ill.2000) (<HOLDING>); Strickler v. Huffine, 421 Pa.Super. 463, 618
holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage holding that when an insurer denies coverage on grounds unrelated to late notice a strong presumption arises that the insurer has not suffered prejudice from the late notice holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage 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 holding that an insurer will not be estopped from denying coverage merely because the underlying case proceeds to judgment before the declaratory judgment action is resolved