Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that a contract which specifies the period of its duration terminates on the expiration of such period. See Shepard v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 210 Kan. 652, 653, 504 P.2d 228, 229 (1972); Bartlett & Co., Grain v. Curry, 1 Kan.App.2d 242, 247, 563 P.2d 1096, 1101 (1977) (citing 17 Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 486, p. 955). The general rule that an insurance policy lapses if the insured fails to pay the renewal premium before the policy expiration date may be modified by a statutory requirement of notice. See Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Tab Transp., Inc., 12 Cal.4th 389, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 159, 906 P.2d 1341, 1347 (1995) (finding that carrier statute prohibited lapse in particular case); Lopez v. New Jersey Auto., Full Ins. Underwriting Ass’n, 239 N.J.Super. 13, 570 A.2d 994, 995 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Contractual requirements of notice may also 
 Holding statements: (A) holding negligent failure to notify regulatory body of lapse of insurance policy did not arise out of underwriting of insurance (B) holding that late notice of the bond did not excuse supplier from its obligation to comply with statutory notice requirements (C) holding that title automatically vests in the adverse possessor at the end of the statutory period if all the requirements are met (D) holding that even if statutory requirements are met courts must inquire into totality of the circumstances to determine if waiver was knowing and voluntary (E) recognizing that insurance policy may lapse if the statutory renewal notice requirements are met
Output (English): holding negligent failure to notify regulatory body of lapse of insurance policy did not arise out of underwriting of insurance