The Fourth Circuit recently continued a growing trend in enforcing voluntary payment clauses as written against policyholders who fail to obtain their insurers' consent before entering into an underlying settlement. Perini/Tompkins Joint Venture v. ACE American Ins. Co., 738 F.3d 95 (4th Cir. 2013) (No. 12-2415). Perini/Tompkins Joint Venture (PTJV), one of the entities involved in constructing the Gaylord National Resort and Conference Center at the Nation Harbor complex in Washington, DC, failed to obtain the consent of its insurer, ACE, prior to settling a construction defect claim with another entity. Affirming the district court's decision, the Fourth Circuit held that the requirement in Maryland Code Sec. 19-110 that the insurer show prejudice before denying coverage for an insured's failure to comply with either notice or cooperation clauses did not apply to the voluntary payment clause, as the duties imposed by such clauses are separate and distinct. Even if Sec. 19-110 were to apply, the court found that ACE had been prejudiced by PTJV's failure to inform ACE of the settlement. The court further held that because compliance with the voluntary payment clause is a condition-precedent to coverage, the policy's no-action clause barred PTJV from suing ACE on the basis of its coverage denial. This case serves as a cautionary tale for policyholders to carefully review voluntary payment clause language in their insurance policies and negotiate changes to such language if necessary.