General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Gill

525 So. 2d 1108, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 981, 1988 WL 37807
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedApril 18, 1988
Docket87-CA-743
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 525 So. 2d 1108 (General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Gill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Gill, 525 So. 2d 1108, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 981, 1988 WL 37807 (La. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

525 So.2d 1108 (1988)

GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
v.
Russell S. GILL.

No. 87-CA-743.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

April 18, 1988.
Rehearing Denied May 17, 1988.

Hugh G. Oliver, Westwego, for defendant-appellant.

*1109 Bruce M. Danner, Philip S. Brooks, Metairie, for third-party defendant-appellee.

Before KLIEBERT, GRISBAUM and DUFRESNE, JJ.

GRISBAUM, Judge.

The original defendant, Mr. Russell S. Gill, appeals the summary judgment, which was granted in favor of a third-party defendant, Insurance Premium Assistance Company (I.P.A.C.), the company through which he financed payment for certain automobile insurance. We affirm.

ISSUE

Whether the pleadings and supporting documents demonstrate there was a genuine issue of material fact and whether the third-party defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

FACTS

The record facts show that on August 14, 1986, General Motors Acceptance Corporation filed suit against the defendant-appellant, Mr. Gill, for failure to make installment payments on a note given in payment for a 1984 Buick Regal. By virtue of a March 30, 1986 accident, the vehicle had been rendered a total loss. The defendant third-partied various insurance companies/underwriters, along with the insurance agency with which he had dealt. Also made a third-party defendant was I.P.A.C., the insurance premium finance company through whom the defendant had financed the payment of his insurance premiums.

Procedurally, the defendant, in joining I.P.A.C. as a third-party defendant, alleged that, "Insurance Premium Assistance Company is responsible [for payment of all claims by General Motors Acceptance Corporation] because they negligently failed to forward premiums to the insurance company; Gill denies that the insurance company ever cancelled the policy." The appellant further pleads: "Alternatively, and only in the alternative, Insurance Premium Assistance Company was the agent of Prestige Casualty Insurance Company and is responsible separately, severally and in solido with them for payment of the claim of General Motors Acceptance Corporation...."

I.P.A.C., in its pleadings, responded, "Insurance Premium Assistance Company was not the agent of Prestige Casualty Insurance Company." Moreover, "At all times pertinent hereto, Insurance Premium Assistance Company had paid in full the premiums due to Prestige Casualty Insurance Company, and accepted and negotiated those checks after cancellation of the subject policy in payment of the loan made by Insurance Premium Assistance Company to Russell S. Gill" (emphasis added). After answering, I.P.A.C. on June 23, 1986 filed a motion for summary judgment, supporting it with a memorandum and an affidavit, by Belinda Keasling, office manager of I.P. A.C., outlining the chronological history of I.P.A.C.'s transactions with Mr. Gill concerning his insurance premiums. We note that a notice of intent to cancel was forwarded by I.P.A.C. to Gill, notifying him that his policy would be cancelled if no payment were received within ten days. A second affidavit by Ms. Keasling attests that this notice was mailed November 12, 1985 and the notice itself indicates that the policy was to be cancelled on November 22, 1985. Additionally, we see that I.P.A.C. mailed notice to Gill that the policy had been cancelled, this letter stating,

DUE TO YOUR DEFAULT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE I.P.A.C. CONTRACT, YOUR INSURANCE POLICY HAS BEEN TERMINATED.
I.P.A.C. WILL RECEIVE ALL UNEARNED PREMIUMS AND COMMISSIONS AND WILL CREDIT YOUR ACCOUNT. IF, AFTER ALL MONIES HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO YOUR ACCOUNT A REFUND IS DUE, I.P.A.C. WILL REFUND THE SURPLUS TO YOU.

This "Termination of Insurance" notification by I.P.A.C. also advised Gill of the cancellation date: November 26, 1985.

LAW

The mechanism of summary judgment in civil proceedings is provided for by La.C.C. P. art. 966, which states:

A. The plaintiff or defendant in the principal or any incidental action, with or without supporting affidavits, may move for a summary judgment in his favor for *1110 all or part of the relief for which he has prayed. The plaintiff's motion may be made at any time after the answer has been filed. The defendant's motion may be made at any time.
B. The motion for summary judgment shall be served at least ten days before the time specified for the hearing. The adverse party may serve opposing affidavits prior to the date of the hearing. The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
C. A summary judgment may be rendered on the issue of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages.

The jurisprudence interpreting this provision makes clear that summary judgment should be granted only when reasonable minds must conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Chaisson v. Domingue, 372 So.2d 1225, 1227 (La.1979). A decision on the motion necessarily involves an examination of the merits of the case as they appear through the pleadings and supporting documents submitted on trial of the motion.[1]Jones v. City of Kenner, 442 So.2d 1242, 1245 (La. App. 5th Cir.1983). In accord with the provisions of La.C.C.P. art. 967, the burden of proof functions as follows:

the court must first determine whether the supporting documents presented by the moving party are sufficient to resolve all material fact issues. If they are not sufficient, summary judgment must be denied. Only if they are sufficient does the burden shift to the opposing party to present evidence showing that material facts are still at issue; only at this point may he no longer rest on the allegations and denials contained in his pleadings.

Sanders v. Hercules Sheet Metal, Inc., 385 So.2d 772, 775 (La.1980); see also Jones at 1246.

As should be obvious from the rationale of summary judgment principles, any decision as to the propriety of a grant of the motion must be made with reference to the substantive law applicable to the case. Only in the context of the applicable substantive law can issues of material fact be ascertained.

ANALYSIS

Initially, the appellant-original defendant claims that I.P.A.C. negligently failed to forward insurance premiums to the insurance company and further claims that the insurance company never cancelled the policy. We find it is undisputed that there was a premium finance agreement between Mr. Gill and I.P.A.C. wherein I.P.A.C. financed *1111 the insurance premiums due to A & R Capital Underwriters.

We note that La. R.S. 9:3550[2] sets forth the procedures an insurance premium finance company must follow to validly cancel an insurance policy. This statute requires ten days' notice of cancellation from the premium finance company to the insured in the event the company elects to exercise its power of attorney to cancel the *1112 *1113 insurance policy upon default under a premium finance agreement.

As noted, I.P.A.C. has submitted two affidavits in support of its motion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Gill
589 So. 2d 1151 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1991)
Summerville v. Sovereign Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.
587 So. 2d 715 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1991)
Hodges v. Colonial Lloyd's Ins.
546 So. 2d 898 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1989)
Funck v. Surgi's Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.
537 So. 2d 840 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1989)
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Gill
531 So. 2d 476 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
525 So. 2d 1108, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 981, 1988 WL 37807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-motors-acceptance-corp-v-gill-lactapp-1988.