Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02270/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02270-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ART and JANELL HEROLD, 

d/b/a VIDEO WORLD, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

FI LED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cir~uir 

(Vi:~Y 9 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, ) 

No. 89-2270 

(D.C. No. 88-1538 SC) 

(D. N.M.) 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, ANDERSON and TACBA, Circuit Judges. 

This appeal is from an order of the district court granting 

defendant's motion for summary judgment and , denying plaintiffs' 

motion for summary judgment in a case alleging tortious breach of 

an insurance contract by defendant. Plaintiffs allege that the 

district court erred in failing to grant summary judgment as a 

matter of law to plaintiffs on the grounds that defendant failed 

to give notice to plaintiffs of the cancellation or nonrenewal of 

an insurance contact, and further on the grounds that summary 

judgment for the defendant should not have been granted because 

there remain disputed issues of material fact. We affirm. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2270 Document: 01019970070 Date Filed: 05/09/1990 Page: 1 
Defendant Insurance Company issued two consecutive policies 

insuring plaintiffs' business premises Video World. One of the 

policies covered the period from September 3, 1984 to September 3, 

1985. The second policy covered the period from September 3, 1985 

to September 3, 1986. Each of these policies expired by its own 

terms on the date of expiration. The first policy was replaced by 

the second. After a request by plaintiffs, defendant's agent 

proposed and submitted to plaintiffs a proposed new policy to 

cover the period from September 3, 1986 to September 3, 1987. 

This policy was not executed and no premium was paid. Thus the 

second insurance policy under which plaintiffs recovered expired 

by its own terms on September 3, 1986. A fire loss occurred at 

plaintiffs' Video World on January 17, 1987 for which plaintiffs 

now seek coverage. Plaintiffs argue that defendant was under a 

statutory duty to give notice to plaintiffs of plaintiffs' intent 

not to renew or cancel the insurance contract. Under the 

circumstances of this case, however, the facts are undisputed that 

defendant Insurance Company stood ready and willing to perform. 

Thus, the defendant Insurance Company had no intent to refuse to 

renew the contract if plaintiffs executed the contract and paid 

the required premium. No premium was paid and the renewing 

insurance contract was not executed by plaintiffs. Under these 

circumstances we agree with the district court that defendant owed 

no duty of notice to plaintiff. We AFFIRM. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2270 Document: 01019970070 Date Filed: 05/09/1990 Page: 2