Stephens v. LeBlanc

879 So. 2d 262, 2004 La. App. LEXIS 1253, 2004 WL 1078025
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 14, 2004
DocketNo. 2003 CA 1460
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 879 So. 2d 262 (Stephens v. LeBlanc) 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
Stephens v. LeBlanc, 879 So. 2d 262, 2004 La. App. LEXIS 1253, 2004 WL 1078025 (La. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

J^FITZSIMMONS, J.

The issue on appeal is whether the defendant, Mr. Ashton R. LeBlanc, had automobile insurance coverage under a policy issued by defendant, U.S. Agencies Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. (U.S. Agencies). After the trial court found coverage, U.S. Agencies appealed. Based on an error of law, we reverse.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The insured, Mr. LeBlanc, purchased insurance from U.S. Agencies. He financed his premium through an insurance premium finance company, LIFCO, L.L.C. (LIFCO). The only parties named in the premium finance agreement were the buyer, Mr. LeBlanc, the agent, “USAgencies Management Services,” and the lender, LIFCO. After Mr. LeBlanc failed to make his payment on the due date, LIFCO sent him a notice of cancellation. Subsequently, LIFCO sent to the insurer, U.S. Agencies, a copy of the notice of cancellation and a statement certifying that: (1) the finance agreement contained “a valid power of attorney,” (2) the finance agreement was “in default and the default [had] not been timely cured,” (3) “a Ten (10) Day Notice of Cancellation was mailed to the insured ... [, c]opies of these notices are enclosed and the Affidavit Proof of Mailing is available upon request,” and (4) “[c]opies of the Ten (10) Day Notice of Cancellation were mailed to all persons shown by the premium finance agreement to have an interest in any loss which may occur thereunder.” The statement also provided the policy number, a “Notice Date” of September 1, 2001, a “Cancel Date” of September 12, 2001, and the name of the insured, Mr. LeBlanc.

On September 22, 2001, Mr. LeBlanc and the plaintiff, Mr. James Stephens, were involved in a vehicular accident in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. On November 20, 2001, Mr. Stephens filed a suit for damages naming as defendants, Mr. Le-Blanc and his insurer, U.S. Agencies. In its answer, U.S. Agencies denied coverage based on cancellation of the policy prior to the accident. Mr. LeBlanc | ¡¡filed a cross-claim against U.S. Agencies on the issue of coverage. At the trial on the merits, the parties stipulated that Mr. LeBlanc was the sole cause of the accident. Evidence was submitted on the issues of damages and coverage.

In oral reasons, the trial court found that Mr. LeBlanc had not timely paid his premium. That issue has not been appealed. However, the court continued, as follows:

And I was prepared to rule that the policy had been cancelled; but in reviewing the statute, there is no indication on the notice of cancellation to [Mr. LeBlanc] that his lienholder or the Department of Motor Vehicles was being informed. There is no notification on the ten-day notice of cancellation to either him or the lienholder of the name or of the notification to the agent or ... any indication that a notice of cancellation was made to the agent. And for that reason, I find the cancellation to be ineffective and the policy to have been in effect.

A judgment was signed on April 29, 2003, finding coverage by U.S. Agencies for Mr. LeBlanc, and awarding damages to [264]*264the plaintiff, Mr. Stephens. Only the issue of coverage was appealed.

APPLICABLE LEGAL PRECEPTS

The laws governing cancellation pursuant to an insurance premium finance company’s exercise of its power of attorney must be strictly applied. Delatte v. Lemotte, 633 So.2d 686, 689 (La.App. 1 Cir.1993). The pertinent part of the applicable statute in effective at the time of the cancellation, La. R.S. 9:3550, provides that:

A. This Section shall apply to any person engaged in the business of financing insurance premiums for consumers entering into premium finance agreements or otherwise acquiring premium finance agreements.
H* *1* H*
G. Insurance contracts may be canceled upon default as follows:
(1) When a premium finance agreement contains a power of attorney enabling the insurance premium finance company to cancel any insurance contract or contracts listed in the agreement, the insurance contract or contracts shall not be canceled by the insurance premium finance company unless such cancellation is effectuated in accordance with this Subsection.
L(2) Upon default of the insurance premium finance agreement by the debtor, the premium finance company may mail a notice of cancellation to the insured, at his last known mailing or electronic address as shown on the records of the insurance premium finance company. A copy of the notice of cancellation of the insurance contract shall also be mailed to the insurance agent negotiating the related insurance contract whose name and place of business appears on the premium finance agreement. Such notice of cancellation shall also state the name of any governmental agency, mortgagee, or third party also requiring notice of cancellation as shown on the insurance premium finance contract.
(3)(a) Ten days after notice of cancellation has been mailed to the insured, or fourteen days when notice is sent from outside of this state, if the default has not been cured, the insurance premium finance company may thereafter effect cancellation of such insurance contract or contracts by mailing to the insurer, by depositing in the mail or with a private carrier within five business days after the date of cancellation, except when the payment has been returned uncollected, a copy of the notice of cancellation together with a statement certifying that:
(i) The premium finance agreement contains a valid power of attorney as provided in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection.
(ii) The premium finance agreement is in default and the default has not been timely cured.
(iii) Upon default, a notice of cancellation was sent to the insured as provided in Paragraph (2) of this Subsection, specifying the date of sending by the premium finance company to the insured.
(iv) Copies of the notice of cancellation were mailed to all persons shown by the premium finance agreement to have an interest in any loss which may occur thereunder, specifying the names and addresses of any governmental agencies, mortgagees, or third parties to whom the insurance premium finance company has sent notice of cancellation.
(b) Upon receipt of such notice of cancellation and statement from the premium finance company, the insurer shall consider that cancellation of the insurance contract or contracts has been re[265]*265quested by the insured but without requiring the return of the insurance contract or contracts and the insurer may proceed to cancel such contract or contracts as provided in R.S. 22:637. The effective date of cancellation shall be as of 12:01 a.m. on the tenth day after the date of mailing of the notice of cancellation as shown in said statement furnished to the insurer by the premium finance company.
(c) The receipt of such notice [of cancellation] and statement by the insurer shall create a conclusive presumption that the facts stated in said notice and statement are correct, that the insurer is entitled to rely on such facts and that the cancellation of the insurance contract or contracts is concurred in and authorized by the insured.

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

Related

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)
DeSOTO v. Humphreys
957 So. 2d 268 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2007)
William Desoto v. Gerald S. Humphreys
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2007

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
879 So. 2d 262, 2004 La. App. LEXIS 1253, 2004 WL 1078025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephens-v-leblanc-lactapp-2004.