Hodges v. Colonial Lloyd's Ins.

546 So. 2d 898, 1989 WL 70442
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedJune 20, 1989
Docket88 CA 0929
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 546 So. 2d 898 (Hodges v. Colonial Lloyd's Ins.) 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
Hodges v. Colonial Lloyd's Ins., 546 So. 2d 898, 1989 WL 70442 (La. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

546 So.2d 898 (1989)

Terry L. HODGES and Debbie S. Hodges
v.
COLONIAL LLOYD'S INSURANCE.

No. 88 CA 0929.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 20, 1989.

William C. Shockey, Baton Rouge, for Terry L. & Debbie S. Hodges.

Richard A. Deas, Janelle Naccari, Metairie, for Colonial Lloyd's Ins.

Bruce Danner, Philip Brooks, Metairie, for Ins. Premium Assistance Co. (IPAC).

Before CARTER, LANIER and LEBLANC, JJ.

CARTER, Judge.

This is a suit for damages and declaratory judgment arising out of an automobile insurance policy.

FACTS

On November 8, 1984, Colonial Lloyd's Insurance Company (Colonial) issued to plaintiffs, Terry L. Hodges and Debbie S. Hodges, a policy of automobile insurance for a period of one year.[1] The premium for *899 the insurance policy was financed through Insurance Premium Assistance Company (IPAC). Under the terms of the premium finance agreement between IPAC and plaintiffs, plaintiffs were responsible for monthly payments on or about the eighth day of each month, commencing in December of 1984. Additionally, plaintiffs appointed IPAC as its attorney in fact with power to cancel the insurance coverage in the event of plaintiffs' default in timely payment of the premium installments.[2]

Plaintiffs defaulted in the payment due on February 8, 1985.[3] As a result of this default, on February 13, 1985, IPAC mailed to plaintiffs a notice entitled "Cancellation Notice." The cancellation notice, which was introduced into evidence as exhibit P-2, provided in pertinent part, as follows:

* ******************* * * CANCELLATION NOTICE * * ******************* * HODGES, TERRY APT 451 10530 FLORIDA BLVD BATON ROUGE LA 70815 IMPORTANT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE BELOW MENTIONED INSURANCE POLICY WILL BE CANCELLED IF PAYMENT IS NOT RECEIVED BY THE DATE INDICATED IN NO. 3 BELOW. YOUR POLICY WILL BE CANCELLED BECAUSE YOU HAVE DEFAULTED IN THE PAYMENT OF AN INSTALLMENT DUE UNDER YOUR PREMIUM FINANCE AGREEMENT. 1) POLICY NUMBER: PA103632 2) IPAC ACCOUNT NUMBER: 41762 3) DATE POLICY TO BE CANCELLED: 02/26/85 ** IMPORTANT: CANCELLATION DATE 4) DATE THIS NOTICE MAILED: 02/13/85 THIS INSURANCE IS SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION IF THE PAYMENT IS NOT RECEIVED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE. THE *900 FOLLOWING IS DUE WITHIN TEN DAYS IN ORDER TO PREVENT CANCELLATION. 5) DUE DATE: 02/8/85 6) PAYMENT AMOUNT: 96.90 7) LATE CHARGE: 4.85 (ASSESSED 10 DAYS AFTER DUE DATE) 8) TOTAL DUE: 101.75

A copy of this notice was sent to AAA Insurance—Baton Rouge, a franchise of AAA Insurance Company.

Plaintiffs received the February 13, 1985, notice and were aware that if the premium was not paid by February 26, 1985, their insurance would be cancelled and they would be uninsured. Thereafter, IPAC, pursuant to the power of attorney contained in the premium finance agreement, requested that Colonial cancel the plaintiffs' insurance policy, effective February 26, 1985. Plaintiffs admitted receiving the second notice of termination also. Additionally, plaintiffs did not pay any premiums after January, 1985, and did not attempt to reinstate the policy after receipt of the February, 1985, notices.

On or about July 1, 1985, Colonial effectuated cancellation of plaintiffs' insurance policy for nonpayment to IPAC, effective February 26, 1985. At that time, reimbursement of all unearned premiums was made to IPAC, and Fidelity National Bank, the lienholder of the 1984 Subaru, was notified of the cancellation. Plaintiffs also received a copy of the July 1, 1985, notice.

On August 13, 1985, plaintiffs were involved in a multi-car collision. As a result of the accident, the 1984 Subaru sustained damages of approximately $6,400.00 and was rendered a total loss. Plaintiffs made claims upon Colonial under the collision coverage afforded by the policy of insurance issued by Colonial and financed by IPAC. Colonial denied coverage on the grounds that the policy had been cancelled for nonpayment of the premiums.

On October 17, 1986, plaintiffs filed suit against Colonial for coverage under the collision provisions of the policy for $6,075.00 in damages allegedly sustained to their 1984 Subaru.[4] Plaintiffs also requested declaratory relief, declaring that the Colonial policy was in full force and effect on August 13, 1985, and that Colonial owes plaintiffs protection under the liability portions of the policy, including defense, against claims advanced against them by others involved in the August 13, 1985, collision.[5] Plaintiffs also sought penalties and attorney's fees. On March 6, 1987, Colonial filed a third party demand against IPAC requesting indemnification from IPAC on the main demand if Colonial was held liable to plaintiffs or, alternatively, for repayment of the unearned premiums paid to IPAC.

After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against Colonial on the main demand for $6,150.00, together with legal interest from date of judicial demand until paid, but denied plaintiffs' request for penalties and attorney's fees.[6] The trial court also issued a declaratory judgment, declaring that the automobile policy issued by Colonial to plaintiffs was in full force and effect on August 13, 1985, and that Colonial owes plaintiffs the protection of the liability portion of the policy, including defense. The trial court also rendered judgment on the third party demand in favor of Colonial and against IPAC for $6,150.00, reserving unto Colonial the right to seek indemnification for future expenditures on the liability portion of the policy.

*901 From this adverse judgment, IPAC appeals assigning the following errors:

(1) The City Court was incorrect in determining that the subject "Cancellation Notice" (P-2) did not constitute a notice of cancellation as required by LSA-R.S. 9:3550 (as amended).
(2) The City Court was incorrect in determining that Colonial Lloyd's Insurance Company was entitled to indemnification from Appellant relative to the Judgment rendered in favor of Plaintiffs; and
(3) The City Court was incorrect in determining that Appellee was entitled to indemnification from Appellant on the basis of the subject Cancellation Notice.

Colonial did not appeal or answer the appeal. Therefore, the only issue before this court is the propriety of the trial court judgment on Colonial's third party demand against IPAC.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

(Insurance Coverage)

The essential question in this case is whether there was an effective cancellation of the insurance contract upon default. LSA-R.S. 9:3550 sets forth the procedures an insurance premium finance company must follow to validly cancel an insurance policy. General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Gill, 525 So.2d 1108 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988), writ denied, 531 So.2d 476 (La.1988); Britten v. Reavis, 503 So.2d 1149 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1987), writ denied, 506 So.2d 1232 (La.1987); Dairyland Insurance Company v. Marks, 468 So.2d 841 (La.App. 1st Cir.1985).

LSA-R.S. 9:3550 G provides that insurance contracts may be cancelled upon default as follows:

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

Related

Williams v. GoAuto Insurance
Fifth Circuit, 2025
Jones v. Anderson
224 So. 3d 413 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
KMJ Services, Inc. v. Hood
115 So. 3d 34 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2013)
In Re Grant
1999 BNH 43 (D. New Hampshire, 1999)
Safeway Insurance v. Smith
740 So. 2d 729 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1999)
Delatte v. Lemotte
633 So. 2d 686 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
Hunter v. Automotive Casualty Insurance Co.
606 So. 2d 571 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1992)
Summerville v. Sovereign Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.
587 So. 2d 715 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
546 So. 2d 898, 1989 WL 70442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodges-v-colonial-lloyds-ins-lactapp-1989.