LISA MARIE MOHN AND BETTY JANE ANDERSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. OF HARTFORD, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Insureds appealed summary judgments in favor of both their insurer and their insurance agent. The court affirmed the judgment against the insurer but reversed the judgment against the agent, finding disputed material facts regarding whether the agent received and communicated a cancellation notice to the insureds.
The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the insurer but reversed the summary judgment in favor of Grubbs because material factual disputes exist regarding receipt of the cancellation notice and the insurer's potential willingness to reinstate the policy upon timely notification.
[1] Summary judgment is affirmed in favor of an insurer when the record demonstrates no disputed issues of material fact regarding the insurer's actions.
[2] Summary judgment in favor of an insurance agent is reversed when disputed issues of material fact exist regarding whether the agent received notice of policy cancellation…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“there are disputed issues of material fact on at least two matters. First, there are factual disputes concerning the question of whether a copy of the insurer's notice of cancellation for failure to pay premiums, which was dated September 5, 1988, was received by Grubbs prior to the October 20, 1988 cancellation date”
Establishes the first material factual dispute that precludes summary judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford issued a cancellation notice dated September 5, 1988, for nonpayment of premiums, with a cancellation dat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Of Cancellation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Insureds, Lisa Marie Mohn and Betty Jane Anderson, appeal the final orders of the trial court entering summary judgment in favor of The Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford (insurer), and entering summary judgment in favor of Grubbs Insurance Agency (Grubbs).
We affirm the summary judgment in favor of the insurer; however, we reverse the summary judgment in favor of Grubbs because the record reveals that there are disputed issues of material fact on at least two matters. First, there are factual disputes concerning the question of whether a copy of the insurer’s notice of cancellation for failure to pay premiums, which was dated September 5, 1988, was received by Grubbs prior to the October 20, 1988 cancellation date of the insureds’ policy. It is undisputed that Grubbs never notified the insureds, who were Grubbs’s clients, of the cancellation notice. The insureds claim that they never received the properly mailed cancellation notice from the insurer and there is evidence in the record that when Grubbs receives a cancellation notice someone at the agency contacts the insured to notify the insured of the notice.
Second, even if Grubbs received its copy of the cancellation notice after the October 20, 1988 date of cancellation, there is a factual dispute as to whether the insurer would have accepted a late payment and reinstated the insureds’ policy prior to November 25, 1988 (the date of the Mohn’s accident) had Grubbs notified the insureds of its receipt of the cancellation notice prior to that date.
Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment in favor of the insurer (case no. 90-2485) but reverse the summary judgment in favor of Grubbs and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings (case no. 91-54).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
COBB, W. SHARP and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.