proven by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 734-35, 853 P.2d 913. Under Washington law, “the general rule is that, while an insurer may be estopped, by its conduct or its knowledge or by statute, from insisting upon a forfeiture of a policy, yet under no conditions can the coverage or restrictions on the coverage be extended by the doctrine of waiver or estoppel.” Carew, Shaw & Bernasconi v. General Cas. Co., 189 Wash. 329, 336, 65 P.2d 689 (1937). The rule has been criticized as “eroding,” and Washington law recognizes at least two exceptions to it. Estate of Hall v. HAPO Fed. Credit Union, 73 Wash.App. 359, 362-63, 869 P.2d 116 (1994) (quoting 16B J. Appleman, Insurance Law § 9090, at 582 n. 5 (1981)); see Saunders v. Lloyd’s of London, 113 Wash.2d 330, 336, 779 P.2d 249 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Butler, 118 Wash.2d
holding that when the insurer takes the position that the policy does not cover the complaint the insurer must 1 defend the suit under a reservation of rights or 2 seek a declaratory judgment that there is no coverage if the insurer fails to take either of these actions it will be estopped from later raising policy defenses to coverage 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 holding that an insurer can deny benefits based on late notice by the insured only when the insurer is prejudiced by the delay 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 an insurer can be estopped from denying coverage for failure to make payments where that insurer has established a course of conduct of accepting late payments