Title: Anderson v. Cooperative Insurance Companies

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Anderson v. Cooperative Insurance Companies (2004-445); 179 Vt. 288; 895 A.2d 155

2006 VT 1

[Filed 13-Jan-2006]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                  2006 VT 1

                                No. 2004-445


  Deborah Anderson                           Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                   Addison Superior Court


  Cooperative Insurance Companies           April Term, 2005


  Helen M. Toor, J.

  Kevin E. Brown and Clara F. Gimenez of Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP,
    Middlebury, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Joan W. D. Donahue and Richard P. Foote of Conley & Foote, Middlebury, for 
    Defendant-Appellee.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, and 
            Allen, C.J. (Ret.),  Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.   Plaintiff Deborah Anderson appeals from the
  Addison Superior Court's denial of her summary judgment motion and grant of
  summary judgment in favor of defendant.  She argues that defendant must
  cover a loss that occurred after her automobile insurance policy had
  expired because defendant was aware of the loss when it extended her an
  offer, retroactive to the expiration date, to reinstate the policy.  Thus,
  she reasons, the superior court erred in granting summary judgment for
  defendant.  Defendant argues that there is no coverage for plaintiff's
  claim because the loss occurred after the auto policy had expired, and
  defendant had unequivocally denied the claim at issue and never retracted
  that denial.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  The facts are not in dispute.  Plaintiff was covered by an
  automobile liability policy issued by defendant.  Despite receiving a
  renewal notice from defendant approximately one month before the policy
  expiration date, plaintiff failed to pay her renewal premium on time.  As a
  result, the policy expired on August 13, 2003.  Three days later, on August
  16, plaintiff's car sustained substantial damage in an accident.  Plaintiff
  reported the accident to her insurance agent on August 18, and later that
  day the agent informed plaintiff that defendant was denying coverage for
  the August 16 accident because the policy had expired on August 13.

       ¶  3.  Next, plaintiff received a "Final Notice" generated by
  defendant's computer system and dated August 18, 2003.  The notice informed
  plaintiff that her policy had expired on August 13 and that she could
  reinstate the policy "back to 8/13/2003" if she paid her premium by August
  31.  Plaintiff mailed the renewal form with the premium to defendant.  On
  or about August 25, defendant received plaintiff's acceptance of its offer
  to reinstate coverage, along with the requested premium.  Defendant then
  sent an "Acknowledgment of Late Payment," dated August 25, stating that it
  received the premium payment and that "coverage has been reinstated and
  remains in force without interruption." 
   
       ¶  4.  On August 27, plaintiff resubmitted her claim for coverage of
  her losses resulting from the August 16 accident.  By letter dated August
  29, defendant informed plaintiff that the reinstatement of her policy did
  not provide coverage for the August 16 accident.  The letter explained that
  her policy only covered unknown losses, and that "[t]here was no longer an
  insurable risk" once she had the accident during the time she was
  uninsured.  The letter also pointed out that plaintiff was advised on
  August 18 that defendant was denying coverage for the loss.  Defendant
  never retracted its denial of coverage, nor did it or any of its agents
  ever tell plaintiff that it intended to cover her claims stemming from the
  August 16 accident.

       ¶  5.  Plaintiff sued, alleging that defendant wrongfully refused to
  provide coverage.  Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.  In an
  order dated September 3, 2004, the trial court denied plaintiff's summary
  judgment motion and granted defendant's because the reinstatement "did not
  cover her for a claim that had already been reported and denied."  The
  court noted that "[w]hile an insurer may agree to cover a loss already
  known to it, there must be an intent to offer such coverage" and concluded
  there was no evidence of such an intent on the part of defendant.  This
  appeal followed.

       ¶  6.  On appeal, this Court reviews a motion for summary judgment de
  novo, employing the same standard as applied by the trial court.  Hardwick
  Recycling & Salvage, Inc. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 2004 VT 124, ¶ 14, 177 Vt.
  421,