We affirm the court of appeals' decision in result, finding, under the particular facts of this case, no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to recall the jury and accept a verdict after the court declared a mistrial and discharged the jury.

The primary issue in this case is whether the "notice-prejudice rule," which requires an insurer to prove it was prejudiced by untimely notice of a lawsuit, applies when no rights of innocent third parties would be compromised. We hold it does not. In this case, however, we find the insured's failure to provide timely notice was not a material breach of the insurance contract. We affirm as modified the circuit court and court of appeals' decision requiring the insurer provide indemnity despite the lack of timely notice. We also affirm the court of appeals as to whether the summary judgment order was premature and whether two policy exclusions apply.