COURT DECISIONS

Rough Notes, Aug 2007

The certificate addressed cancellation with the following language: "[sjhould any of the above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing insurer will endeavor to mail [ten] days' written notice to the certificate holder named to the left, but failure to do so shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the insurer, its agents or representatives." Kevin Leville was the certificate holder named.

On November 10, 1999, a storm caused extensive water damage to the home because Anderson did not adequately cover the roof. Prudential paid the Levilles $199,385.37 pursuant to the homeowners policy, then brought a subrogation action against Anderson. According to Prudential's claim, "Anderson induced the [Levilles] to engage in a contract by giving a certificate of insurance regarding [insurance] coverage when [Anderson] knew or should have known that, in fact... coverage may well not have been in effect."

Anderson claimed that Zurich American Insurance Company had issued it a contract of insurance covering the period from January 1999 through January 2000. However, Zurich claimed it had cancelled the policy on October 19, 1999, because Anderson failed to pay his premiums. Although Kevin Leville was the named certificate holder, neither of the Levilles was notified that Anderson's policy had been cancelled.

Anderson and Prudential eventually stipulated to $199,385.37 as the judgment amount. Prudential then amended its complaint to assert a claim against Zurich. Prudential claimed that Zurich had in effect induced the Levilles to enter into an agreement with Anderson by allowing its agents to issue a certificate when the policy was not in effect. Zurich argued it properly cancelled the policy. The lower court found in favor of Zurich; Prudential appealed.

On appeal, Prudential argued that Anderson was justified in believing that it was covered by a policy of insurance simply because Zurich issued the certificate on its behalf. According to Prudential, the parties had a lengthy history. That history included several instances of nonpayment of premiums due to dishonored checks as well as correspondence and representations made by the Malloy Agency that created a pattern of maintaining coverage despite partial or late payments. Prudential argued that because Zurich had not cancelled coverage in the past under these circumstances, Anderson could reasonably believe the coverage would not be cancelled in the future under similar circumstances. The Appellate Court of Connecticut disagreed with Prudential. It found that the undisputed facts supported a finding that the policy was properly cancelled when Anderson failed to pay the premium due.

Prudential also argued that the court should not have found in favor of Zurich because Zurich never notified the Levilles that the policy had been cancelled, and because Zurich had no mechanism for informing certificate holders when insurance had been cancelled. Again, the court disagreed. According to the court, Zurich owed no duty to the Levilles or to Prudential to notify them that the policy had been cancelled. Anderson knew that the policy was to be cancelled if the premium due was not paid. Anderson made partial payments, and some of its checks bounced because of insufficient funds. It knew it was not on solid ground. Prudential, standing in the shoes of Anderson, was imputed the same knowledge, and therefore could not claim lack of knowledge.