cancellation what happened was the fullers were decorating their house in preparation for a super bowl party on january thirty first twenty fifteen and they had a malfunction in a heating fireplace and the house caught on fire m b no it's to the followers their policy had been canceled two days before by safeco so the issue this before the court here and was below is whether safeco effectively cancelled that policy by following the statute in washington that sets out requirements for cancellation r c w forty eight eighteen two nine zero the fallers weren't the only ones who didn't receive notice of the cancellation their insurance agency also received no letter no notice of cancellation the record shows declarations from three people at the independent insurance agency that they do receive and they rely on copies of notices of cancellation that when they come in the agency takes action gets on the phone misses faller it says here that you you didn't pay your premium they're going to cancel you ok let's take care of it that's how it should work it doesn't work of course when safeco doesn't send a copy of the notice to the agent about three months after denying the claim safeco came up with an affidavit and the statute says that the an affidavit from the person who made it or supervised mailing the cancellation notice can be prime and facie evidence that the cancellation was effective mr mot scenarios in his affidavit all the magic words that the statute requires for example he says i i made i supervised the mailing of the cancellation notice so your honor that yeah maybe a more interesting question is if we didn't have the agent in there can't just any insured say oh i didn't get the notice and then you know force a trial i don't know the answer to that question but here we have not only the fullers but also their insurance agents so i have evidence that that cancellation notice never was maile actual receipt i'm not disagreeing that lack of receipt is certainly some evidence that it was in sand but in washington the insurer doesn't have to show actual receipt that's very that right that's absolutely true your honor and what i've tried to do throughout this case below in the briefing here is to say we you know that's the law we agree with that we're not asking the court change that what we're asking with cork to do is to look at the facts and first of all determine whether or not that cancellation was properly done because if it wasn't there is no cancellation of such we're looking at the statute and help me the term i have the most problem if i had a problem with a couple of the statutory requirements but one of them was what does provide such a mailing mean so the word supervisor supervising isn't defined statute the cancellation statute there are some other washington statutes which say supervision does not require a person to be on site so you can supersede vives a doctor can supervise physician assistan first of all both parties agree that this statute should be construed strictly against cancellation and that's a tradeoff safeco only has to prove they mailed it and you know that can lead to to some some losses that shouldn't happen so we still construe this street statute strictly against cancellation whether mr moti was on the premises or not help me say that a supervisor has to be onsite where it does the supervisor have to be actually looking at the machine or what has helped me understand how to construe that term there isn't the case and there is not a statute or regulation which construes that term as far as i know and i certainly look at the problem with mr mo to go far beyond whether he was on the premises or whether he was supervising mr motors affidavit start out by saying i am a shift supervisor for operations support for safeco i am a shift supervisor i ask him his deposition what shift he said i shift i supervise from two o'clock or six o'clock in the morning until two o'clock in the afternoon we call it first shift this notice is alleged to have gone out and three ten a m which is third ship mota testified that he doesn't supervise anything that happens on any shift other than his own he is a shift supervisor that is his job and both his affidavit and his deposition testimony make that very clear he didn't supervise this mailing he didn't make the mailing he's not competent to testify whether or not that mailing was made they could testify concerning the standard practice that's utilized by safeco correct he could he could but in mind your honor that the classic mailbox rules that we use in most forms of copy of commerce really doesn't apply here we have a detail step by step statu that says exactly what safe go has to do in order to to mail this and effect cancellation if safeco follows that statute the cancellations affected if safe go didn't follow the statute the cancellation is of no avail at all so i've been looking at the statute it's attached as an appendix to my opening brief and i think it's important to look at it closely as the courts do what the statute says in section one is that cancellation may be affected only upon compliance with the following thereafter there are five subsections a through e a the insured must deliver or mail written notice of cancellation b doesn't apply see if the insurer cancels for nonpayment insured must deliver or mail the notice to the named insured the doesn't apply he and this is a point of dispute he like noticed must also be delivered or mailed to each mortgage like notice must also be so delivered or mailed to each mortgage subsection e under section one which says safeco must comply and the only way they can cancel it is by compliance with a through washington court of appeals case on an old version of the statute as the opinion the opinions quotes the statute and what it said at that time was in order to cancel the company had to mail the notice either to the insured or to the mortgagee i don't know how that would work but that's what the statute said so at that time it was very clear that you could just mail the notice to the insured and that would take care of it over that over time mortgagees have obtained a great deal more protection in property insurance policies than they used to have and one of those protections is this one which requires notice in endless new ski there is no question but that it had been mailed to someone to one of the parties true truth while the sides agreed yes yes that was it was agreed and  knew ski was arguing that mailing didn't do it that the insurance company had to prove that was news be actually received the notice we don't ledge that so clear if  person who actually mailed it in an affidavit say and mailed this notice and it wasn't received still that would be sufficient to terminate the policy if there was evidence from the person who mailed it well if safeco can prove it mailed the notice properly then the cancellation is good if safeco can't prove that then the cancellation is not good any so they can prove they are limited to proving they mailed it well a either the person who put it in the mail or be the person who supervised that but not otherwise that's right that's right the statute is really clear in section three th t the affidavit of the individual not just anybody of the individual making or supervising is prima facie evidence of mailing now the other side thinks it's conclusive and argues in their brief that as a matter of law this affidavit from mr mota carries the day and it doesn't it's prime a face it we can rebut it  here first of all with evidence that it was not received by two i had it easy in port angeles that should have received it which raises the inference that it wasn't mailed at all and certainly there are other reasons that those notices didn't get to where they were going if they were mailed but it raises that inference is it possible that a supervisor would have to testify to the statute that he or she knows for sure that the standard practices were followed on the day that the mailing  think that's the kind of testimony we expect at trial certainly and against that you know we have mr motos affidavit where he talks about quality control there was none there was a guy who looked at the first and last of ten thousand one hundred eighty three envelopes and the cleared that everything was hunky dory that's the kind of evidence that that's going to be talked about in this trial because you know the real question really should a jury or should a judge decide whether safeco mailed this out mailed this notice and whether safeco has proven it if you made an argument that  mailing via pitney bowes does not satisfy the statute is there any support for that in the case law or any regulation that suggests only the statute which says and it says a letter deposit y of the united states post office yes a letter depository of the united states post office why don't we construe the statute strictly against cancellation to pitney bowes is not the post office if the purpose here was to construe the statute in favor of counsel in favor of cancellation if that was a public policy we could say all it's practically the same thing they take in the mail they put it somewhere they are authorized to do these things and maybe that would carry the day but if we construe this strictly as well as we have to then the post office is the post office a letter depository is a place to put letters they can be private on the outside of a building or they can be owned and run by the police i think the statute doesn't allow for any intermediaries or agents to deposit the mail is that is that how you read office that's look that's the way we used to do it he would go to the post office with a list and the postmaster would check them off and on that list would be the fallers and their address and that would be evidence that that it was done you know we don't do that anymore because it's too expensive and everybody's too big to important but they have to comply with this statute they didn't cancel him for a due time is post office they're authorized by the post office they are one in the same as the post office and so with respect to an intermediary as soon as safe go puts those notices on the pallet and pitney bowes picks them up there in a deposit y of the united states you are also asked whether the absence of a receipt by the insured or by their agent could somehow create a genuine issue of material fact in the answer's no  safe go house to do is to establish a private prime a facia under the statute and under its policy that it complied with the requirements for issuing the notice of cancellation and they did that and we have evidence in the record that supports that the district court properly found that and this court on the novo review should find so as well john's let me ask you a question on that is it sufficient for mr molder to give a and david as a supervisor if you didn't supervise at the time this letter was mails yes it is your  statute requires that it can be an affidavit of a supervisor as was pointed out there is no statutory definition of that term does say supervising such a mailing and opposing counsel says employment at that at the time it was mailed so it's your response to the ad two things your honor mr as mr motor testified he's worked for the company in this position for twenty three years if any if anyone knows about what the procedures are and were for mailing notices someone who's worked on for the company certainly does we've also cited to the bon case where the court held that out because or where one has a large company you can have someone who relies on the business records of the company in order to establish that in fact the mailing was made so that's the common law rule in opposing councils as we're not dealing with the common law rule here where we're dealing with a statute in the washington supreme court has told us we're very picky about considering a statute to a certified mail is not the same as mail so why isn't supervising such a mailing requires the actual employee who was supervising at shift the employee who supervised that shift could be used in an affidavit but i'd submit that mr moat as well could because one of his responsibilities was to supervise and i would think it would be an overly restrictive interpretation of the statute to say that someone with the knowledge that mr mota has the experience he has as outlined in the record in great detail cannot satisfy the statutory requirement of providing an affidavit of someone who supervise a mailing unless of course has any further question solved rely on the briefing that we've submitted you i don't have anything to add to that you're all great we appreciate arguments from both counsel thank you for your fine or you