Smith v. Gramercy Insurance Co.

189 So. 3d 497, 2015 La.App. 1 Cir. 0845, 2016 La. App. LEXIS 485, 2016 WL 933441
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMarch 10, 2016
DocketNos. 2015 CA 0845, 2015 CA 0846
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 189 So. 3d 497 (Smith v. Gramercy Insurance Co.) 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
Smith v. Gramercy Insurance Co., 189 So. 3d 497, 2015 La.App. 1 Cir. 0845, 2016 La. App. LEXIS 485, 2016 WL 933441 (La. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

GUIDRY, J,

|..¡Defendant, Citadel Insurance Company d/b/a GoAuto Insurance, appeals from a judgment of the trial court awarding plaintiff, Beverly Smith, damages as a result of an automobile accident with its insured, Darlene Shelmire. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

[499]*499FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 27, 2010, the vehicle operated by Ms. Shelmire collided with the vehicle operated by Ms. Smith when Ms. Shelmire proceeded through the intersection of America Street and St. Charles Street in Baton Rouge, Louisiana without yielding the right of way. Thereafter, Ms. Smith filed a petition for damages, naming Ms. Shelmire and her insurer, Gramercy Insurance Company (Gramercy), as .defendants and asserting that she sustained injury as a result of the accident. Gramercy answered the petition generally denying the allegations contained therein and raising several defenses. On February 16, 2011, Gramercy filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting for the first time that there was no insurance coverage for Ms. Shelmire or the vehicle she was operating at the time of the accident, because her policy was cancelled as of 12:01 a.m. on July 20, 2010, for failure to pay premiums. Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court found in favor of Ms. Smith and denied Gramerc/s motion.

Thereafter, Citadel Insurance Company d/b/a GoAuto (GoAuto), as the legal successor to Gramercy, filed a motion to re-urge the motion for summary judgment, asserting that no coverage was afforded under the subject policy at the time of the accident in question because the policy was cancelled prior to the date of the accident for the insured’s failure to pay premiums. Following a hearing, however, the trial court signed a judgment denying GoAuto’s motion.

|4The matter proceeded to a bench trial on January 26, 2015. At the conclusion of Ms. Smith’s case-in-chief, GoAuto moved for an involuntary dismissal, asserting that Ms. Smith had failed to prove insurance coverage; however, the trial court denied the motion. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court took the matter under advisement and accepted post-trial memoranda. Thereafter, on February 6, 2015, the trial court ruled in favor of Ms. Smith, finding that there was a valid insurance policy in place at the time of the accident due to the fact that GoAuto never cancelled the insurance policy. Specifically, the trial court relied on the fact that Ms. Shelmire paid the premium in the afternoon on the date of the accident, that a few hours later, she reported the accident to GoAuto as having occurred earlier that morning, and despite this knowledge that Ms. Shelmire was making a claim for an accident that occurred during a time when it claimed she did not have coverage, GoAuto paid, the very next day, the claim submitted by Ms. Shelmire for her property damage. The trial court subsequently signed a judgment in conformity with its ruling, ordering GoAuto to pay Ms. Smith $15,000, representing its policy limits.

GoAuto now appeals from the trial court’s judgment.

DISCUSSION

Involuntary Dismissal

GoAuto first assigns as error the trial court’s denial of its motion for involuntary dismissal. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1672(B) provides:

In an action tried by the court without a jury, after the plaintiff Has completed the presentation of his evidence, any party, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal of the action as to him on the ground that upon the facts and law, the plaintiff has shown no right to. relief. The court may then determine , the facts and render judgment against the plaintiff and in favor óf the moving party or may. decline to ren[500]*500der any judgment until the close of all the evidence.

| ^Article 1672 affords the trial judge discretion to render or to decline to render any judgment until the close of all evidence. Benton v. Clay, 48,245, p. 20 (La.App. 2nd Cir.8/7/13), 123 So.3d 212, 225. Thus, the purely discretionary decision of a trial court to deny a motion for involuntary dismissal at the close of, a plaintiffs case leaves nothing to review on appeal. Townsend v. Delchamps, Inc., 94-1511, p. 2 n. 1 (La.App. 1st Cir.10/6/95), 671 So.2d 513, 514 n. 1, writ denied, 95-2648 (La.1/12/96), 667 So.2d 522.

In the instant case, the trial court, in its discretion, denied GoAuto’s motion to dismiss and heard all of the evidence presented in the matter before rendering its decision. Under these circumstances, and in accordance with the law detailed above, when the trial court has denied a motion for involuntary dismissal, there is nothing for this court to review on appeal. Accordingly, we find this assignment of error to be without merit.

Insurance Coverage

GoAuto next assigns as error the trial court’s determination' that an insurance policy provided by GoAuto to Ms. Shelmire was in. effect at the time of the accident at issue. Particularly, GoAuto contends that Auto Premium Assistance Company (APAC), the premium finance company that financed Ms. Shelmire’s premiums, followed La. R.S. 9:3550 in instructing GoAuto to cancel Ms. Shelmire’s policy for failure to pay her premium and that GoAu-to properly complied with its legal responsibility.

The burden of proving that an insurance policy has been cancelled for nonpayment of premium prior to the date of the accident giving rise to a claim under the policy is on the insurer. See Direct General Insurance Company of Louisiana v. Mongrue, 04-248, p. 6 (La.App. 5th Cir.8/31/04), 882 So.2d 620, 623 and Hale v. Corley, 36,911, p. 3 (La.App. 2nd Cir.3/5/03), 839 So.2d 1056, 1058; see also Alexander v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 148 So.2d 898, 900-901 (La.App. 1st Cir.1962).

Louisiana Revised Statute 9:3550(G) provides a mechanism by which an insurance policy may be cancelled upon default by the insured. At the time of the alleged cancellation of the policy in July 2010, La. R.S. 9:3550(G) provided:

(1) When a premium finance agreement contains a power of attorney enabling the insurance premium finance company to cancel any insurance contract, or contracts, or endorsements' listed in the agreement, the insurance contract, or contracts, or endorsements shall not be canceled by the insurance premium finance company unless such cancellation is effectuated in accordance with this Subsection.
(2) Upon default of the insurance premium finance agreement by the debtor, the premium finance company shall mail or send an electronic notice of cancellation to the insured, at his last known mailing or electronic address as shown on the records ofithe insurance premium finance company. In the event the default is timely cured, the premium finance company shall, within three business days from the timé the default was cured, mail or send electronic notice of rescission of the cancellation notice to the insured, at his last known mailing or electronic address as shown on the records of the premium finance company and to all other parties who had previously been sent notice of cancellation. In the event the default is not timely cured as provided herein and the insurance policy is canceled pursuant to the [501]

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

Related

Escobar v. Cajun Operating Co.
209 So. 3d 198 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 So. 3d 497, 2015 La.App. 1 Cir. 0845, 2016 La. App. LEXIS 485, 2016 WL 933441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-gramercy-insurance-co-lactapp-2016.