Sanchez v. Sigur, 264 So. 3d 587

On June 9, 2012 Holli Sigur paid $177.14 and began procuring an auto liability policy from Affirmative Casualty Insurance Co. (doing business as USAgencies); a declarations page and insurance ID card showed an effective date of June 9, 2012.
Sigur never returned a completed insurance application or signed premium finance agreement and made no further premium payments after the June 9 transaction.
USAgencies mailed a 30-day cancellation notice (dated June 11, 2012) for failure to return application, and a 10-day cancellation notice (dated June 18, 2012) for nonpayment of premium; proof of mailing affidavits were in the record for the 10-day notice.
LIGA (successor to Affirmative Casualty after insolvency) moved for summary judgment that the policy was cancelled before the September 8, 2012 accident; plaintiffs did not oppose LIGA’s motion or dispute LIGA’s facts.
The trial court denied LIGA’s summary-judgment motion, finding genuine issues of material fact about cancellation dates, the premium finance agreement, and whether the $177 constituted a premium payment; LIGA sought supervisory review.
The appellate court reviewed de novo, concluded the 10-day notice complied with La. R.S. 22:1266, that the 30-day notice (for nonreceipt of application) lacked proof of certified mailing/delivery and was ineffective, and held the policy was cancelled effective June 28, 2012, so no coverage existed at the September 8, 2012 accident.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an auto liability policy was in effect at time of 9/8/2012 accident	Sigur/plaintiffs suggested factual dispute whether policy was ever effective or whether initial payment created coverage	LIGA argued the policy was cancelled for nonpayment before the accident	Held: Policy was cancelled effective 6/28/2012; no coverage on 9/8/2012
Whether the 10‑day notice for nonpayment satisfied La. R.S. 22:1266	Plaintiffs implied notice was unclear and disputed cancellation timing	LIGA/USAgencies produced a 10‑day notice and affidavit of mailing; argued strict statutory 10‑day notice for nonpayment sufficed	Held: 10‑day notice complied with statute and gave sufficient proof of notice; cancellation valid for nonpayment
Whether the 30‑day notice (for nonreceipt of application) was effective	Plaintiffs relied on presence of both notices to argue ambiguity re: cancellation date and sufficiency	LIGA argued insurer may rely on any valid cancellation ground; both notices could exist	Held: 30‑day notice required certified mail/delivery under statute and record lacked proof; 30‑day notice ineffective—but 10‑day notice independently validated cancellation

Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 200 So.3d 277 (de novo review standard for summary judgment)
Washington v. McCauley, 62 So.3d 173 (insurance-policy interpretation often decided on summary judgment)
Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 630 So.2d 759 (insurance contracts construed to determine parties' common intent)
Accardo v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., 751 So.2d 975 (insurer bears burden to prove cancellation and insured's understanding)
Direct Gen. Ins. Co. v. Mongrue, 882 So.2d 620 (strict compliance required with La. R.S. 22:1266 cancellation notice provisions)
Wooley v. Lucksinger, 61 So.3d 507 (appellate courts may consult trial court reasons for judgment to understand basis)
Burmaster v. Plaquemines Parish Government, 963 So.2d 378 (reasons for judgment are not the judgment itself)
State in the Interest of Mason, 356 So.2d 530 (reasons for judgment serve only to expound trial court determinations)