The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has held that a policyholder’s delay in providing notice of loss to its insurer did not bar coverage at the summary judgment stage due to the insurer’s inability to demonstrate that it was substantially prejudiced.  B.S.C. Holding, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 13-3142 (10th Cir. Mar. 11, 2014).  Lexington Insurance Co. (“Lexington”) insured B.S.C Holding, Inc. and Lyons Salt Co. (collectively, “Lyons”) under an all risks property policy.  While Lyons discovered water intrusion in its salt mine in January 2008, it did not notify Lexington of the water intrusion until July 2010 after Lyons had spent more than $2.5 million to find the cause of the water intrusion and indentify a solution.  The policy provided for notice to be made as soon as practicable, with a proof of loss due within 90 days of discovery of loss, damage or occurrence.  The court assumed that Lyons had waited too long to notify Lexington, but stated that under governing Kansas law, such delay would only relieve Lexington of coverage obligations if Lexington proved substantial prejudice.  There was no presumption of prejudice, rather the insurer must factually demonstrate that it would have handled the investigation, discovery or defense of a claim differently and that such difference likely would have led to the insurer defeating the underlying claim or settling for a lower amount.  Lexington argued it suffered prejudice in investigating and remediating the water intrusion as well as prejudice in underwriting renewal policies.  The court rejected these arguments, reasoning that Lexington had failed to provide sufficient evidence to back up its arguments.