Nolan v. Mabray, 2010 La. LEXIS 2614

Nolan sued Wilson Mabray, Farm Bureau, and Shelter over a 2005 injury incident caused by Mabray's son; Farm Bureau insured Wilson, Shelter insured Mabray under a farmowner policy.
The insurers settled Nolan's claim for $100,000, with Shelter reserving a defense of lack of coverage and potential partial payment depending on coverage.
Shelter claimed it mailed a renewal notice to Mabray on April 28, 2005, stating a June 2, 2005 due date and that nonpayment would terminate coverage.
Payment was not received until June 29, 2005, and Shelter contends the policy lapsed at 12:01 a.m. on June 2, 2005, thus not in effect during the June 18 accident.
Trial evidence centered on whether the renewal notice was properly mailed; the trial court found mailing occurred based on an underwriting supervisor's testimony and related records.
The Court of Appeal reversed, finding insufficient evidence that the notice was mailed to Mabray and emphasizing the insured’s lack of memory of receipt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Shelter mailed the renewal notice to Mabray before lapse	Nolan argues there is insufficient proof of mailing; receipt by Mabray is not shown.	Shelter contends it followed standard mailing procedures and produced testimony and records showing mailing.	Yes; the Supreme Court reinstates trial court finding that mailing occurred.

Ray v. Associated Indemn. Corp., 373 So.2d 166 (La. 1979) (premised on renewal notice and willingness to renew; mailing proof creates rebuttable presumption)
Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 782 So.2d 606 (La. 2001) (great weight given to trial-finder credibility; manifest error standard)
Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (limit on reversing trial court factual findings under manifest error)
Guillory v. Lee, 16 So.3d 1104 (La. 2009) (two permissible views; trial court's choice not manifestly erroneous)
Ray v. Associated Indemn. Corp. (dup. reference within text for context), 373 So.2d 166 (La. 1979) (see above)
Hale v. Corley, 839 So.2d 1056 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2003) (mailing evidence in renewal notices from business records)
Hemperly v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 516 So.2d 1202 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1987) (admissibility of business records to prove mailing)
Adamson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 676 So.2d 227 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1996) (summary judgment context on renewal notice)
Cole v. Lavine, 595 So.2d 398 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1992) (mailing and notice considerations in insurance disputes)