Burnside v. Geico General Insurance Co.
309 Ga. App. 897
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Renewal of Burnsides' GEICO policy on Aug 24, 2006; renewal bill due Sept 15, 2006 and not fully paid.
- GEICO mailed a notice of cancellation to the Burnsides on Oct 16, 2006 for nonpayment, with cancellation effective Oct 27, 2006 at 12:01 a.m.
- On Nov 7, 2006, Mrs. Burnside's vehicle was struck; Burnsides believed cancellation was in effect and learned of it when contacting GEICO.
- November 7, 2006 payment of $970.60 reinstated the policy the next day, but the reinstatement was not retroactive to cover the accident.
- Burnsides filed a declaratory-judgment action; GEICO moved for summary judgment; trial court granted; appeal challenged four aspects of notice and cancellation.
- Court reviews summary judgment de novo in light most favorable to nonmovant; GEICO bears burden to show no triable issue on essential elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GEICO mailed a valid notice of cancellation | Burnsides did not receive the notice; mailing evidence insufficient | GEICO showed notice was mailed with proper USPS receipt and business-records support | Yes; mailing sufficient; receipt of actual delivery not required |
| Whether the mailing receipt and procedures satisfied statutory proof of mailing | Receipt is ambiguous and fails to show first-class postage and proper form | Affidavits show proper batching, postage, and mailing practices; recipient not required to receive | Yes; evidence meets OCGA 33-24-44/45(c) requirements |
| Whether the cancellation date of October 27, 2006 is properly established | Disagreement over the meaning of an “effective” date after reinstatement | Cancellation language stated October 27, 2006 at 12:01 a.m. as the effective date; no genuine factual issue | Yes; cancellation effective Oct 27, 2006 |
| Whether the November 7, 2006 payment reinstated the policy and affected coverage | Payment was for ongoing investigation, not reinstatement | Payment caused reinstatement the next day; issue of intent irrelevant to summary judgment | Yes; reinstatement occurred consistent with policy terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 134 Ga.App. 739 (1975) (proof of mailing suffices; receipt need not show actual delivery)
- Hill v. Allstate Ins. Co., 151 Ga.App. 542 (1979) (proof of mailing, not receipt, governs cancellation)
- Stapleton v. Colonial Ins. Co. of Cal., 209 Ga.App. 674 (1993) (affidavits/certified records admissible to prove proper mailing)
- Int'l Serv. Ins. Co. v. Consol. Underwriters, 125 Ga.App. 786 (1972) (cancellation effective upon deposit in the mails with proper receipt)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Alexander, 293 Ga.App. 459 (2008) (records support proper mailing constitutes cancellation)