Case Title: Suchoski v. Redshaw

Citation: 163 Vt 620, 660 A.2d 290

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-03-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUCHOSKI_V_REDSHAW.94-344; 163 Vt 620; 660 A.2d 290

[Filed 24-Mar-1995]

                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 94-344

                            FEBRUARY TERM, 1995


Alison Suchoski & Linda Newton       }         APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.                              }         Chittenden Superior Court
                                     }
Robert Redshaw, Derick Redshaw       }
& Andy Redshaw                       }         DOCKET NO. S1415-92CnC
                                     }
     v.                              }
                                     }
The Travelers Insurance Company,     }
Inc. and The Phoenix Insurance       }
Company                              }


                     In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

     On April 24, 1990, plaintiff Alison Suchoski was injured while riding a
bicycle owned by defendant Derick Redshaw and loaned to her by defendant Andy
Redshaw.  The only issue on appeal is whether the homeowners policy issued to
Derick and Andy's parents by Phoenix Insurance Company was in effect on the
date of the accident. 

     In 1989, Phoenix issued a homeowners policy to defendant Robert Redshaw
and his then wife Rhonda Redshaw.(FN1)  The insurance contract provided
coverage for losses occurring "during the policy period shown in the
Declarations."  The declarations stated that the policy period ran for twelve
months beginning March 13, 1989 to March 13, 1990.  The contract further
provided: 

      If we elect to continue this insurance, we will renew this policy if
      you pay the required renewal premium for the successive policy
      period, subject to our premiums, rules and forms then in effect.
      You must pay us prior to the end of the current policy period or
      else this policy will not continue.

(Emphasis added.)

 

     In January 1990, defendant Robert Redshaw received a renewal notice from
Phoenix, notifying him to make payment of the premium by March 13, 1990 to
ensure coverage after that date.  He did not pay the required premium, but,
instead, purchased insurance from another company. 

     On April 12, 1990, Phoenix mailed defendant a document entitled, "Offer
to Reinstate." The bottom portion of the "Offer to Reinstate" read: 

                    *IMPORTANT NOTICE - OFFER TO REINSTATE*

               YOUR POLICY EXPIRED ON 03/13/90 AT THE TIME STATED IN
               YOUR POLICY OR THE DECLARATIONS PAGE BECAUSE WE DID
               NOT RECEIVE THE PAYMENT DUE ON YOUR PREMIUM BY THE
               DUE DATE.  HOWEVER, WE WILL BE HAPPY TO REINSTATE
               THIS POLICY WITHOUT INTERRUPTION IF YOU PAY THE
               "TOTAL AMOUNT" BY 05/02/90.

(Emphasis added.)  Again, defendant did not pay the stated premium amount or
take any action to reinstate the policy with Phoenix. 

     Also on April 12, Phoenix mailed to defendant's mortgagee a document
entitled "Certificate of Mailing."  This document stated: 

             NOTICE OF CANCELLATION . . .

             WE ARE PLEASED TO HAVE YOU AS A CUSTOMER AND
             WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE
             YOUR INSURANCE.  UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE NOT
             RECEIVED THE PREMIUM PAYMENT DUE ON THIS
             POLICY.  THEREFORE, YOUR POLICY DESIGNATED
             ABOVE IS CANCELLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS
             TERMS ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION
             SHOWN ABOVE, AND AT THE TIME ON WHICH THE
             POLICY BECAME EFFECTIVE. . . . WE . . . WILL BE
             PLEASED TO REINSTATE THIS COVERAGE IF WE
             RECEIVE YOUR PAYMENT ON OR BEFORE THE
             EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.

The "effective date of cancellation" shown on the certificate was May 2,
1990.  In response to this notice, the mortgagee wrote to defendant informing
him that it received a notice of cancellation of insurance. 

     Plaintiffs claim that defendant's insurance policy was in effect on
April 24, 1990 because the "Certificate of Mailing" unequivocally indicated
that the policy would not be cancelled until 

 

May 2, 1990.  We disagree. 

     We must interpret an insurance contract by looking at its provisions
together and viewing them in their entirety.  Sanders v. St. Paul Mercury
Ins. Co., 148 Vt. 496, 501,