Case Title: Loiselle v. Barsalow

Citation: 180 Vt. 531, 2006 VT 61, 904 A.2d 1168

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-06-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
Loiselle v. Barsalow (2005-149); 180 Vt. 531; 904 A.2d 1168

2006 VT 61

[Filed 26-Jun-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 61

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-149

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2005


  Tamie Loiselle                       }         APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }         Chittenden Superior Court
      v.                               }
                                       }
  Charles Barsalow dba Barsalow        }         DOCKET NO. S0730-01 CnC
  Insurance Agency and                 }
  New Hampshire Indemnity Company      }

                                                 Trial Judge: Matthew I. Katz


             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  This interlocutory appeal turns on whether defendant-appellee
  New Hampshire Indemnity Company (insurer) properly provided notice to its
  insured, plaintiff Tamie Loiselle, of the cancellation of plaintiff's
  automobile insurance policy under 8 V.S.A. §§ 4224(a) and 4226.  The trial
  court held that insurer did comply with the statutes and granted summary
  judgment in insurer's favor.  We affirm and remand.  

       ¶  2.  Plaintiff purchased automobile insurance from insurer through
  defendant-appellant Barsalow Insurance Agency (Barsalow) beginning in July
  1998.  The parties agree that insurer attempted to cancel the policy in
  April 2000 for nonpayment of the premium.  Insurer claims that it mailed
  Loiselle a cancellation notice dated March 17, 2000, at her then-current
  address.  The notice stated that insurer would cancel the policy if it did
  not receive the delinquent premium payment on or before April 9, 2000. 
  Loiselle testified that she never received the notice.

       ¶  3.  Loiselle testified that she learned of the cancellation in
  early June 2000, when she called Barsalow after her husband received notice
  from the State of Vermont that his driver's license was going to be
  suspended for lack of insurance coverage.  Loiselle asked Barsalow about
  the status of the policy, and Barsalow advised her that insurer had
  canceled the policy in April and would refund the payment Loiselle had
  tendered in May.  Barsalow advised Loiselle that she would have to apply
  for new insurance in order to obtain coverage.  

       ¶  4.  On June 9, after the above-described interactions with
  Barsalow, Loiselle had an accident with an uninsured motorist.  Insurer
  denied coverage because, in its view, it had already canceled the policy. 
  Loiselle sued Barsalow and insurer.  As to Barsalow, she claimed that the
  agency had agreed to provide insurance coverage from the time of their
  conversations prior to the accident until her husband was able to go to
  Barsalow's office and sign an application for a new policy and pay the
  initial premium.  As to insurer, she claimed that the purported policy
  cancellation was invalid.

       ¶  5.  Barsalow moved for summary judgment, arguing that insurer had
  to cover plaintiff's damages because it did not provide proper notice of
  cancellation as a matter of Vermont law.  Specifically, Barsalow argued
  that insurer did not comply with 8 V.S.A. § 4226, which requires an insurer
  to send a notice of cancellation by certified mail or to obtain a
  certificate of mailing to prove it was sent.  Insurer moved for summary
  judgment against plaintiff and opposed Barsalow's motion, arguing that the
  cancellation was effective as a matter of law because it did obtain a valid
  certificate of mailing.

       ¶  6.  The superior court denied Barsalow's motion and granted
  insurer's, holding that the certificate of mailing provided by insurer
  satisfied § 4226, and that insurer proved as a matter of law that it had
  sent proper notice under 8 V.S.A. § 4224(a), thus effectively canceling
  plaintiff's policy.  The court granted Barsalow's motion to take the
  instant interlocutory appeal.  Barsalow advances two points on appeal: (1)
  insurer failed to prove a valid certificate of mailing under § 4226; and
  (2) insurer did not use a proper method of providing notice under §
  4224(a).  We reject both arguments and affirm.

       ¶  7.  We review a decision on a motion for summary judgment de
  novo, employing the same standard as the trial court.  Hardwick Recycling &
  Salvage, Inc. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 2004 VT 124, ¶ 14, 177 Vt. 421,