Lynch v. MS Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-02099-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-02099-SCT2002-CA-02099-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 01-22-2004 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Date: 03-30-2004 Opinion Author: SOUTHWICK, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Nonrenewal of policy - Nonpayment of premium - Estoppel Judge(s) Concurring: McMILLIN, C.J., KING, P.J., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS, AND GRIFFIS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): CHANDLER, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-22-2002 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED. |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CINDY M. LYNCH AND DEBORAH L. FULLEN |
JOSEPH E. ROBERTS
RODERICK D. WARD |
||
| Appellee: | MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY | MICHAEL WAYNE BAXTER |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Insurance - Nonrenewal of policy - Nonpayment of premium - Estoppel |
| Summary of the Facts: | At the time she was involved in an automobile accident with Deborah Fullen, Cindy Lynch's vehicle was insured under a Farm Bureau automobile insurance policy issued in her husband William's name. The Lynches reported the accident to Farm Bureau, who informed them that there was no coverage on the vehicle on the date of the accident because the company had never received the insurance renewal premium. Farm Bureau filed for a declaratory judgment against the Lynches and Fullen to determine the existence of coverage. The Lynches filed a counterclaim. The court granted Farm Bureau's motion for summary judgment, and Lynch and Fullen appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | This case concerns non-renewal of an insurance policy. No notice by the insurance company to the policyholder is required when a policy is not renewed due to nonpayment of premiums. An insurance company may require that a premium actually be received by a certain date in order for the policy to be renewed. The mail acceptance rule (where it is the practice and custom of the insurance company to accept premium payments by mail, the deposit of a check in the mail in time to reach the insurance company will avoid a forfeiture even though the check does not reach the company until afterwards) applies unless the policy clearly requires actual receipt and not just mailing. Ambiguity in terms is at the risk of the drafter of the policy. In this case, the language in the policy and on the renewal notice provided by Farm Bureau is that payment was to be in its possession on or before the due date. The policy would terminate unless the required renewal premium was paid by the insured on or before expiration of the current term. The parties agreed in the evidence presented on summary judgment that the intention was to have the premium received by the due date. Therefore, Farm Bureau was within its contractual right to deny coverage. In order for estoppel to apply in this case, evidence must exist of a past practice that Farm Bureau would send a notice when a premium was not received and that the company failed to do so in October 1995; the Lynches must have justifiably relied on the practice; and reliance on the practice of sending termination notices prejudiced the Lynches by causing them not to have renewed their policy when they would have done so had the customary notice been sent. Had this been a trial, and based on Mr. Lynch's disclaimer of reliance on any past practice, rejection of estoppel would have been required. Because there is no dispute of material fact regarding reliance on a custom or practice and no evidence is in the record of such a reliance, the possibility of estoppel does not arise. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
