224 So. 3d 413
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- On June 1, 2015, Brenda Jones’s vehicle was rear-ended by Jason Anderson; Mario Jones, Jr. was a passenger. Plaintiffs sued Anderson and GoAuto for damages.
- GoAuto asserted Anderson’s policy (renewal policy no. 320107-12) had been financed through Auto Premium Assistance Company, LLC (APAC), and that APAC cancelled the policy for nonpayment effective May 24, 2015.
- GoAuto moved for summary judgment, submitting APAC records and affidavits (including APAC’s ten‑day email notice to Anderson and APAC’s letter to GoAuto requesting cancellation). Anderson did not oppose; plaintiffs opposed without submitting contrary documentary evidence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for GoAuto, finding cancellation complied with law and no coverage existed at the time of the accident.
- On appeal, the primary dispute centered on whether GoAuto proved valid cancellation under LSA‑R.S. 9:3550 where GoAuto did not submit the premium finance agreement governing the renewal policy.
- The appellate court reversed, concluding GoAuto failed to establish the terms of the finance agreement for the renewal policy and therefore could not show cancellation complied with 9:3550.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cancellation complied with statutory notice requirements | Cancellation was invalid because the insurer did not mail or deliver written notice and the emailed APAC notice does not satisfy statutory requirements | APAC’s emailed ten‑day notice and its letter to GoAuto (with certifications) satisfied 9:3550 and allowed cancellation | Reversed trial court: GoAuto failed to establish compliance because it did not produce the premium finance agreement for the renewal policy |
| Whether APAC had authority (power of attorney) to cancel the renewal policy | APAC’s cancellation is invalid without proof of the finance agreement for the renewal showing power of attorney | APAC (via affidavit) asserted the original finance agreement granted power to act on renewals | Court: affidavit did not substitute for the missing renewal finance agreement; authority not sufficiently established for summary judgment |
| Whether insurer may rely on APAC’s cancellation statement to effect cancellation without return of the policy | Plaintiffs: insurer cannot validly cancel absent statutory mailing/delivery and proof of proper finance agreement terms | GoAuto: upon receipt of APAC’s certified notice, insurer may rely on statutory conclusive presumption in 9:3550(G)(3)(c) | Court: insurer could have relied on such a statement, but GoAuto failed to prove the required underlying finance agreement for the renewal, so summary judgment was improper |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the record | Plaintiffs: factual issues remain (terms of renewal finance agreement and compliance with 9:3550) | GoAuto: submitted affidavit and documentary evidence establishing cancellation; plaintiffs offered no contrary documents | Court: factual dispute as to the terms/existence of the renewal finance agreement precluded summary judgment for GoAuto |
Key Cases Cited
- All Crane Rental of Georgia, Inc. v. Vincent, 47 So.3d 1024 (La. App. 2010) (summary judgment avoids trial when no genuine issue of material fact)
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, 639 So.2d 730 (La. 1994) (appellate review of summary judgment uses same criteria as trial court)
- Bouquet v. Williams, 206 So.3d 232 (La. App. 2016) (de novo review of summary judgment evidence)
- Stephens v. LeBlanc, 879 So.2d 262 (La. App. 2004) (application of 9:3550 to financed premiums)
- Hodges v. Colonial Lloyd’s Insurance, 546 So.2d 898 (La. App. 1989) (premium finance statute governs cancellations where premiums are financed)
- KMJ Services, Inc. v. Hood, 115 So.3d 34 (La. App. 2013) (statutory scheme for premium finance companies applies to financed policies)
- Nions v. Richardson, 62 So.3d 217 (La. App. 2011) (discussing requirements for cancellation by premium finance company)
- Delatte v. Lemotte, 633 So.2d 686 (La. App. 1993) (strict adherence required when finance company exercises power of attorney to cancel)
- Burge v. State, 54 So.3d 1110 (La. 2011) (more specific statute controls over general statute)
- Sharp v. Sharp, 939 So.2d 418 (La. App. 2006) (statutory construction principle favoring specific over general statute)