¶2*889William S. Lawson, Tupelo, Miss., Luke M. Dove, Jr., Jackson, Miss., for defendant-appellant.
¶3Baine, Moore, Simmons & Thompson, Louis G. Baine, Jr., Clifford C. Thompson, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee.
¶4Before THORNBERRY, GODBOLD and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.
¶7The plaintiff, the assignee of its judgment debtor’s rights under a medical malpractice insurance policy, contends that the notice provisions1 of that policy create an ambiguity as to the nature of coverage afforded and, in any event, contravene public policy. Although the trial court did not *890expressly deal with these arguments, it did hold that the time restrictions in the policy concerning the claims covered were not an impermissible attempt to shorten the applicable state statute of limitations. Miss. Code Ann. of 1972, § 15-1-5. Having reviewed the notice provisions on which the appellant relies, we do not find that they create any ambiguity in the policy; indeed, they reinforce the conclusion that the policy affords coverage on a “claims made” basis. Were the policy in question an “occurrence” policy, the opportunity to give notice of potential claims would be superfluous. Mississippi law does not, as the appellant contends, require insurers to restrict professional liability policies to one of two rigid molds. The provisions of the policy issued by the insurer are lucid, clear, and hence enforceable. The remaining issues in this case were fully considered by the trial judge, and, for the reasons given in his opinion, Brander v. Nabors, N.D.Miss.1978, 443 F.Supp. 764, the judgment below is AFFIRMED.