In FDIC v. Cont. Cas. Co. (796 F Supp 1344 [DOR 1991]) the court determined that constructive notice to the insurer, comprised of standard financial information coupled with denials by the insured of any occurrence that could give rise to a claim submitted on a renewal application did not constitute sufficient notice of a potential claim, despite the fact the some of the information provided suggested that the bank was experiencing financial difficulties and regulatory problems(Id., 1353). Specifically, the renewal application contained the question, "Does any Director or Officer have knowledge or information of any act, error or omission which might give rise to a claim under the proposed policy?" To which the insured responded, "no" (Id., 1352). Additionally, the insured represented to the insurer that it "was not in danger" (Id., 1353). In FDIC v. Cont. Cas. Co, each of the individual directors and officers testified at deposition that during the renewal period, they did not believe that there was a significant likelihood of claims being asserted against them (Id., 1352). The court noted that this testimony was significant insofar as it demonstrated that the insured disclosed its regulatory problems on the renewal application, not because it was attempting to give notice of a potential claim, but simply because the application requested any information on regulatory action. On this basis, the court concluded that the deposition testimony cast further doubt on the insured's argument that its representations made on the renewal application were designed to give notice of a potential claim (Id.).