FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 12, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 73 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -0 15 76 -TCB GERALDINE RUTLA

ND, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t-C ou nt er-De fen da nt ,

ve rs us STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee-C ou nt er-C la im an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 12 , 20 11 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, EDMONDSON andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Geral di ne Ru tl an d app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i nfav orof S ta te Farm Mu tu al Aut om ob il e In su ran ce Co m pa ny (“ St at e Farm ”) o n h er br each -o f-co nt ractcla im . The m ai n que st io n i s wh ethe r St at e Farm was re qu ire d to co ve r a caracci de ntth atoc curreddu rin g alap se in Ru tl an d’s i ns ur an ce co ve rag e; th atlap se res ul te d fr om he r fai lu re t o p ay

th e requi redpre m iu m s. Aft er care fu l co ns id erat io n o f th e b rie fs an d re vi ew of th e rec or d o n app eal , andha vi ng he ardora l ar gu m en t i n t he m at te r, we co nc lu de th atRu tl an d h as fai le d t o c reat e a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al fact . Thu s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t. I. BACKG ROUND As o f Ju ne 20 03 , Rut la ndha d a n a ct iv e au to m ob il e in su ran ce p ol ic y wit h St at e Farm . On Ju ne 27 , 20 03 , Sta te Farm att em pt edto de bi t $ 28 6.5 1 fr om Ru tl an d’s ch eck in g a cco un t p er the ir p rio r arra ng em en t fo r paym en t o f pr em iu m s. On J un e 3 0, 2 00 3, Ru tl an d’s b an k i nf orm edSta te Farm

th atth ey wou ldno t h on or th e d eb itbe cau se Ru tl an d’s ac co un t was ov erd rawn . St at e Farm

sen t a c ert ifi edlet te r to Ru tl an d o n J ul y 7, 2 00 3, b rin gi ng to he r at te nt io n t he unpa idpre m iu m . The l et te r in fo rm edRu tl an d t ha t i f th e p rem iu m was no t p ai d b y

Ju ly 20, 2 00 3, h er au to m ob il e co ve rag e wou ldbe can cel ed . Not ha vi ng rece iv edhe r pa ym en t b y th e sp eci fie d d at e, St at e Farm can cel edRu tl an d’s in su ran ce p ol ic y . 2On J ul y 31 , 20 03 , Rut la ndwas d riv in g wh il e in to xi cat edan d c ras he d i nt o an ot he r car , ser io us ly inju rin g a n a du ltan d t wo m in orch il dr en . Rut la ndatt em pt ed to rep ort t he car ac ci de ntto he r St at e Farm ag en t, J oh n Dav is , on Aug us t 1 , 20 03 . Sh irl ey Davi s, an em

pl oyee in Mr. Dav is ’s off ic e, in fo rm edRu tl an d t ha t h er in su ran ce co ve rag e h adbe enterm in at edon Ju ly 20, 2 00 3, due to no n- pa ym en t o f pr em iu m s. Acco rd in g t o R ut la nd , Ms . Davi s t ol d h er tha t i f sh e p ai d t he pa st -due am ou ntof $ 28 6.5 1, h er i ns ur an ce co ve rag e wou ldbe rei ns ta te d a ndSta te Farm wou ldpro vi de retro act iv e co ve rag e fo r th e cra sh . Ms. Dav is ha s d en ie d m ak in g an y rep res en ta ti onto Ru tl an d t ha t s he wou ldrece iv e ret ro act iv e co ve rag e, an d M r. Dav is ha s s in ce s ta te d tha t n o e m pl oyee in hi s o ffi ce wo ul d e ve r m ak e an off er o f ret ro act iv e co ve rag e. Ru tl an d m ai le d ach eckfor$2 86 .51 to Sta te Farm onAug us t 4 , 20 03 , and he r in su ran ce co ve rag e was rei ns ta te d o n Au gu st5, 2 00 3. Ru tl an d c la im s t ha t s he sp ok e with M s. Dav is on ce ag ai n a fte r pa y in g the pa st -due am ou ntan d t ha t M s. Dav is ass ur edhe r th atsh e wou ldrece iv e ret ro act iv e co ve rag e fo r th e caracci de nt . St at e Farm

sen t Ru tl an d alet te r on Aug us t 2 8, 2 00 3, t o i nf orm he r th atitwou ld no t p ro vi de retro act iv e co ve rag e fo r he r cra sh . The l et te r as ke d R ut la ndto pro vi de St at e Farm

with a ny furthe r in fo rm at io n t ha t t he y sh ou ldco ns id er i n re ga rdto th e de ni al of i ns ur an ce co ve rag e. Sta te Farm th enup da te d R

ut land ’s bi ll in g s ta te m en t 3in Sep te m

be r 20 03 to refl ectth athe r la te pa ym en t was cred it edto wardhe r acco un t. The vi ct im s o f th e caracci de ntfil edth ree c iv il act io ns ag ai ns t Ru tl an d o n May 25, 2 00 5. St at e Farm di d n otde fen d R

ut la nd , andsh e was un ab le to hi re an at to rn ey . The s ta te co urt en te reda de fau ltjud gm en t ag ai ns t Ru tl an d i n t he am ou nt of $1 5,7 50 ,00 0. Ru tl an d fi le d s ui t ag ai ns t St at e Farm on Marc h 2 6, 2 00 8, al le gi ng th atSta te Farm

act edin ba d fa it h b y

fai li ng to de fen d h er i n t he civ il act io ns . St at e Farm

m ov edforsu m

m ary jud gm en t an d t o e xc lu de th e aff id av itof J en iff

er Ebe rt. Rut la ndm ov edforpa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t an d t o e xc lu de th e 1 te st im on y of F ran k EdwardJen ki ns III. The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d S ta te Farm ’s 2 m ot io n t o e xc lu de an d m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t co urt al so de ni edRu tl an d’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t an d m ot io n t o e xc lu de as m oo t. II . STANDARD OF REVIEW W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g th e rec or d anddra win g a ll in fere nc es in fav orof the no n- m ov in g p art y . Mar ti n v . Rutland attempted to introduce the a ffidavit of Ms. Ebe rt as proof that State Fa

rm in the 1 past had provide d retroa ctive cove rag e for events that oc curr ed while the insure d’s policy was canc eled f

or non-pa y ment of pre miums. State Fa rm offe red the testimony

of Mr. Jenkins with reg ard to the issue of whether 2 Rutland took the proper steps to notify State Fa rm of the Ma

y 25, 2005 lawsuits filed by the victims of Rutl and’s c ar a ccide nt. 4Brev ar d C

ou nt y Pub . Sch . , 54 3 F .3d12 61 , 12 65 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Sum

m ary jud gm en t i s p ro pe r “ if t he pl ead in gs , th e d is co ve ry an d d is cl os ur e m at eri al s o n fi le , andan y affi da vi ts sh ow t ha t t he re i s n o g en ui ne is su e as to an y

m at eri al factan d t ha t t he m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56 (c)( 2) . “ A party m ov in g fo r su m m ary jud gm en t h as th e bu rd enof s ho win g t ha t t he re i s n o g en ui ne is su e o f fac t.” Ebe rh ar dt v. W at er s , 90 1 F .2d15 78 , 15 80 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . II I. DI SCUSSI ON Bec au se Ru tl an d fa il edto pa y he r pr em iu m

on Ju ne 27 , 20 03 , sh e was no t co ve redby a writt enin su ran ce p ol ic y on Ju ly 31, 2 00 3, t he da te of h er cr as h. St at e Farm

sen t a c ert ifi edlet te r to Ru tl an d i nf orm in g h er o f th e p ro bl em of n on pa ym en t an d p ro vi di ng he r wit h s uf fic ie ntno ti ce t ha t t he po li cy wou ldbe can cel le d i f th e p rem iu m

was n otpa idby Jul y

20 , 20 03 . Upo n R

ut la nd ’s fai lu re t o pa y he r pr em iu m

on ti m e, St at e Farm

fol lo wedth e p ro pe r pr oc edur e u nd er Geo rg ialaw fo r can cel la ti on of a n i ns ur an ce p ol ic y . Se e O.C.G.A. § 33 -2 4- 44 (d ) (te n- day no ti ce i s s uf

fic ie ntwhen a po li cy

is can cel le d fo r no n- pa ym en t o f pr em iu m s) . Stat e Farm

ha d n o dut y

to de fen d R

ut la ndinan y

civ il act io n a ris in g fro m th e Ju ly 31 c ar ac ci de nt“ si nc e th is was s ub se qu en t t o t he da te co ve rag e was can cel le d due to no np aym en t o f pr em iu m .” Buf fi ng to n v . St at e Aut o. Mu t. In s. 5Co . , 38 4 S .E.2d87 3, 8 74 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 89 ).

Rut la nd , ho wev er, co nt en ds th atde sp it e th e la ckof awrit te n i ns ur an ce po li cy , Sta te Farm

ha d adu ty to d efen d h er i n the 20 05 laws ui t. Fi rs t, Ru tl an d arg ue s t ha t St at e Farm ’s Aug us t 5 acce pt an ce o f he r la te pre m iu m pa y m en t, co m bi ne d wi th whatRu tl an d v ie ws as anun ti m el y an d i m pr op er re fu ndof t he lat e pa ym en t, cr eat eda m at eri al is su e as to whet he r St at e Farm waiv edit s d efen se of la ckof p aym en t. Sec on d, Ru tl an d a rg ue s t ha t M s. Dav is is su edanora l b in de r fo r ret ro act iv e co ve rag e whe n s he advi se d R ut landto sen d i n h er p as t-due pre m iu m pa ym en t. Thi rd , Rut la ndarg ue s t ha t t he re i s a g en ui ne is su e o f m at eri al fact co nc ern in g p ro m is so ry

est op pe l. Fi na ll y , sh e arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt ab us ed it s d is cret io n b y

ex cl ud in g a n a ffi da vi t fr om Jen ni fer Eb ert . A. St at e Farm Did

No t Waiv e Ca nc el la ti on of Rut la nd ’s Pol ic

y b y Accep ti ng

a La te Premi um Pa

ymen t o n Augu st

5, 2 00 3 Ru tl an d re li es on Clark v. Uni te d In s. Co . of Am. , 40 4 S .E.2d14 9, 1 52 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 91 ), fo r th e p ro po si ti on th ata ge nu in e is su e was rai se d a s t o wh ethe r St at e Farm ’s no n- pa ym en t d efen se was wai ve d upo n i ts acce pt an ce o f Ru tl an d’s la te pre m iu m

pa ym en t. The re, the co urt s ta te d t ha t “ [i]f an in su ran ce co m pa ny rece iv es , acce pt s, an d re ta in s p as t-due pre m iu m s wh ic h a re p ai d s ub se qu en t t o t he du e d at e an d e xp ira ti onof t he gra ce p eri od , itren ews th e co nt ractan d wai ve s t he

6fo rfei tu re fo r no n- pa ym en ts pro vi de d t he acce pt an ce i s u nc on di ti on al an d t he fact s

are kno wn.” Id. at15 2. Alt ho ug h s im il ar, the fact s h ere a re d is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m Clark . In Clark, th e in su ran ce co m pany nev er re fu nd edth e cl ai m an t’s l at e pa ym en ts . Id. at 1 53 . Here, on th e o th er h an d, St at e Farm sen t Ru tl an d alet te r on Aug us t 2 8 i nf

orm in g h er the y

wou ldno t co ve r he r cra sh an d re fu nd edth e la te pa ym en t i n h er Se pt em

be r 20 03 bi ll in g s ta te m en t. St at e Farm off eredth e ref

un d ov er fo ury ears be fo re Ru tl an d fi le d s ui t ag ai ns t St at e Farm . Rut landst res se s t he factth atSta te Farm

he ldon to he r la te pa ym en t fo r “ atlea stsi x wee ks .” Howev er, si x wee ks was n otun reas on ab ly lon g b ecau se Sta te Farm ne ed edfir stto de te rm in e th atRu tl an d’s p aym en t was im pr op erl y ten de red . Stat e Farm

di d n ot“ ret ai n” a pa st -due pre m iu m

as wa s the cas e in Clark ; t hu s, we co nc lu de th atSta te Farm di d no t wai ve it s d efen se of n on -p aym en t. Clark is als o d is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m th e fac ts of t hi s ca se ; t he re, the in su ran ce co m pa ny oft enacce pt edlat e p rem iu m pa ym en ts aft er the pa ss in g o f th e g race pe rio d. Id. Ru tl an d h as no t p ro vi de d a ny evi de nc e th atSta te Farm ha d e ng ag edin a reg ul ar p ract ic e o f rec ei vi ng lat e p aym en ts fro m he r. Ru tl an d a ls o fi nd s i ss ue wit h t he way inwhi ch Sta te Farm

cal cu la te d t he refu ndan d t he ti m e itto okSta te Farm to is su e h er re fu nd . Neithe r of th es e 7arg um en ts rai se s a g en ui ne is su e o f m at eri al fact : Fi rs t, i f Ru tl an d b el ie ve s t ha t

St at e Farm

di d n otpro vi de a co m

pl et e refu ndforth e p eri odin whi chhe r co ve rag e was can cel ed , sh e can fil e a s ep arat e la wsu itto co ll ectth is am ou nt . This Co urt wil l n ot , ho wev er, fi ndth atSta te Farm “ ret ai ne d” a pa st -due pre m iu m on th e b as is of Ru tl an d’s s pe cu la ti onth atSta te Farm m ay ha ve in co rrec tl y

cal cu la te d t he refu nd . Rut la ndha s o ffer edno th in g m or e th anco njec tu re tha t St at e Farm ’s cal cu la ti on s o f th e ref

un d m ay ha ve be eninerro r; s uc h u ns up po rte d a nd sp ecu la ti ve co nt en ti on s fa ll sh ort o f crea ti ng a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al fact . Seco nd , Rut la ndcit es O.C.G.A. § 33 -2 4- 44 (c)( 1) insupp ort o f he r as se rti on th at St at e Farm ’s refundwas l at e. Howev er, thi s s ub se ct io n o f th e st atut e se ts forth th e ap pr op ria te pro cedur es forrefu nd in g p ai d p rem iu m s o nc e a p ol ic y is can cel edin it s en ti ret y , no t re fund s fr om pa st -due pa ym en ts . Thu s, Ru tl an d’s ar gu m en t b as ed on § 3 3- 24 -4 4( c)(1 ) ha s n o m eri t. B. Ms. Da vis’

s Rep re se nt at io ns to Rut la nd Did No t Cr ea te an Ora l Bi nd er Betw een Rut la nd

an d Sta te Farm St at e Farm , Ms . Davi s, an d M r. Dav is all di sp ut e Ru tl an d’s cl ai m th atMs . Dav is to ldRu tl an d t ha t St at e Farm wou ldpro vi de retro act iv e co ve rag e fo r he r cras h. Ho wev er, atth e su m m ary jud gm en t s ta ge we m us t co ns tru e al l fa ct s i n fav orof t he no nm ov an t, Ru tl an d; th us , we wil l p ro ceedun de r th e as su m pt io n t ha t

8Ms . Davi s t wice rep res en te d t o R ut la ndth atSta te Farm

wou ldpro vi de retro act iv e co ve rag e.

“ The pri nc ip al sh al l b e b ou ndby all t he act s o f hi s ag en t wi th inth e sc op e o f hi s au th or it y

. . . .” O.C.G.A. § 10 -6 -5 1. “ The pri nc ip al is als o b ou ndwhen th e ag en t l ack s ex pr es s au th or it y bu t i s p os se ss edof app aren t au th or it y .” Home Mat er ia ls , Inc . v. Aut o Own er s In s. Co . , 30 0 S .E.2d13 9, 1 41 (Ga. 19 83 ). Forth e fo ll owi ng reas on s, we co nc lu de th atMs . Davi s d idno t h av e th e actua l o r ap pa ren t au th or it y to bi ndSta te Farm

to retro act iv e co ve rag e o f Ru tl an d’s cr as h. St at e Farm

do es no t g iv e it s ag en ts th e ex pr es s au th or it y to off er re tro act iv e co ve rag e: Ms . Davi s an d M r. Dav is bo th tes ti fie d tha t t he y un de rs to odSta te Farm ’s po li cy

to be th atanag en t d oe s n otha ve th e au th or it y to off er re tro act iv e co ve rag e. Furth erm or e, th e m erg er cl au se inRu tl an d’s o rig in al in su ran ce p ol ic y st at edth at“ th is po li cy

co nt ai ns all of t he ag reem en ts be twee n youan d u s o r an y of ou r ag en ts ,” an d t ha t p ol ic y di d n otco nt ai n a ny pro vi si on s al lo win g fo r ret ro act iv e co ve rag e.

“ ‘App aren t au th or it y ’ is no t p red ic at edon what ev er a t hi rdpa rty cho os es to th in k a n a ge ntha s the rig htto do , or e ve n upo n wh atth e ag en t s ay s h e can do , bu t m us t b e b as edonact s o f th e p rin ci pa l wh ic h h av e le d t he th irdpa rty to b el ie ve reas on ab ly the ag en t h adsu ch au th or it y .” Th omp so n v . Gen. Mo to rs Accep ta nc e 9Co rp . , 38 9 S .E.2d20 , 21 –2 2 (Ga . Ct. Ap p. 1 98 9) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . A

reas on ab le pe rs on sp eak in g wi th anem pl oyee of anin su ran ce co m

pa ny sho ul d n ot be li ev e th atth e em

pl oyee ha s t he au th or it y

to pro vi de retro act iv e co ve rag e, be cau se th e m ere i de a o f retro act iv e in su ran ce co ve rag e d efi es co m m on sen se . An in su ran ce p ol ic y

is a “ co nt ractwhi ch is anin te gr al pa rt o f a p la n fo r di st rib ut in g in di vi du al lo ss es wher eb y on e u nd ert ak es to in de m ni fy an othe r orto pa y

a sp eci fie d a m ou ntor b en efi ts up on de te rm in ab le co nt in ge nc ie s.” O.C.G.A. § 3 3- 1- 2( 2) . Cov erag e fo r an ev en t tha t h as alr ead y oc curredco ntrav en es th e v ery de fin it io n o f in su ran ce. Fi na ll y , th e fac t t ha t Ru tl an d s en t i n alat e p aym en t af te r Ms . Davi s al le ge dl y to ldhe r th atSta te Farm

wou ldpro vi de retro act iv e co ve rag e carrie s n o si gn ifi can ce. The lat e p aym en t d oe s n otne ces sa ril y de m on st rat e th atRu tl an d be li ev edMs . Davi s h adth e au th or it y to pro vi de retro act iv e co ve rag e; an d e ve n i f Ru tl an d d idsi nc erel y

be li ev e so , su ch a be li ef ca nn otbe sai d t o b e rea so nabl e. C. Rut la nd

Has No t Es ta bl is he d a Genu in e Is su e o f Ma te ri al

Fact Co nc erni ng Pro mis so ryEst op

pe l

“ A pro m is e whi ch th e p ro m is orsh ou ldreas on ab ly exp ectto in du ce ac ti on orforbe aran ce o n t he pa rt o f th e p ro m is ee o r a thi rdpe rs on an d wh ic h d oe s i nduc e su ch act io n o r fo rb eara nc e is bi nd in g i f in jus ti ce ca n b e av oi de d o nl y by

10en fo rcem en t o f th e p ro m is e.” O.C.G.A. § 1 3- 3- 44 (a). Ru tl an d a rg ue s t ha t,

be cau se of M s. Dav is ’s rep res en ta ti on s t ha t St at e Farm wou ldpro vi de retro act iv e co ve rag e, sh e ren ewedhe r po li cy wit h S ta te Farm

rathe r th anen te rin g i nt o ane w in su ran ce co nt ractwit h a no th er co m pa ny at a l owe r rat e. Ru tl an d’s p ro m is so ry -es to pp el arg um en t m is se s t he m ark . The rep res en ta ti on s m ad e b y

Ms . Davi s o ccu rredaft er Ru tl an d’s ca r acc id en t an d a fte r Ru tl an d’s p ol ic y

ha d b een can cel edforno n- pa y m en t. Eve n a ss um in g ar

gu en do th atMs . Davi s’s re pr es en ta ti on s re su lt edin hi gh er p rem iu m s fo r Ru tl an d, t hi s h as no th in g t o d o wi th Sta te Farm ’s refu sa l t o c ov er Ru tl an d’s cr as h. If Rut la nd wis he s t o fi le su itag ai ns t St at e Farm forth e d iff

eren ce i n i ns ur an ce p rem iu m s, s he is free to do so . Howev er, s uc h ath eo ry can no t es tabl is h aba si s fo r Ru tl an d t o reco ve r da m ag es inrel at io n t o S ta te Farm ’s refu sa l t o c ov er h er ca r acc id en t. D. Th e Dis tr ic t Co ur t Di d N ot Abu se Its Dis cr et io n i n Exc lu di ng Jen ni fe r Ebe rt ’s Aff

id av it

“ W e rev ie w evi de nt ia ry

rul in gs m ad e b y

th e d is tri ctco urt fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n a ndwil l re ve rs e th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on on ly in ca se s wh ere subs ta nt ia l p reju di ce ex is ts .” Hal l v. Un it ed Ins . Co. o f Am. , 36 7 F .3d12 55 , 12 59 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (ci ta ti onom it te d) . Ru tl an d a tt em

pt edto in tro du ce J en ni fer Eb ert ’s affi da vi t t o p ro ve th atSta te

11Farm

ha s i ss ue d re tro act iv e co ve rag e in ot he r in st an ces . Ms. Eb ert ’s affi da vi t st at edth atsh e h adbe enin anacci de nt , was i nf orm edth athe r po li cy

ha d b een can cel edforno n- pa ym en t, was to ldto sen d t he lat e p aym en t, an d S ta te Farm pr ov id edco ve rag e fo r th e acc id en t t ha t o ccu rreddu rin g the pe rio d wh enhe r po li cy was c an cel ed . The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t M s. Eb ert ’s affi da vi t l ack edcert ai n fa ct s t ha t m ad e itim

po ss ib le forth e co urt t o d et erm in e it s p ro ba ti ve va lu e. Fir st , th e affi da vi t d idno t s ta te whet he r itwas M s. Eb ertor h er b an k wh o was at f au ltfor th e n on -p aym en t o f pr em iu m s. Sec on d, t he affi da vi t d idno t s ta te whethe r St at e Farm fol lo wedth e p ro pe r no ti ce p ro cedur es forcan cel la ti on of apo li cy . Thu s, t he di st ric t co urt co ul d n otde te rm in e whe th er Ms . Ebert ’s exp eri en ce wi th Sta te Farm was inan y

way rel ev an t t o t he fact s o f Ru tl an d’s ca se . Mor eo ve r, Ru tl an d fa il ed to fil e Ebe rt’s a ffi da vi t o n t im e. W e fi ndth atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n e xc lu di ng th e affi da vi t. Fi rs t, the di st ric t co urt ac te d wel l wi th in it s d is cret io n i n d et erm in in g th atth e aff

id av itlac ke d p ro ba ti ve va lu e. Seco nd , Rut la ndwas n otsubs ta nt ia ll y pr ejud ic edby the ex cl us io n o f th is affi da vi t—Ms . Davi s s ti ll lac ke d t he au th or it y to pro m is e ret ro act iv e co ve rag e. Thi s i s t ru e reg ard le ss of wh ethe r St at e Farm pr ov id edMs . Ebertwit h c ov erag e fo r a s ep arat e ev en t. Fu rth er, Ru tl an d was no t 12aware of M s. Eb ert ’s exp eri en ce wh ensh e se ntin he r la te paym en ts ; s he can no t

no w con te ndth atMs . Ebert ’s exp eri en ce l edhe r to a reas on ab le be li ef tha t M s. Dav is ha d the ap pa ren t au th or it y to off er re tro act iv e co ve rag e. IV. CONCLUSI ON W e fi ndth atSta te Farm

pro pe rly canc el edRu tl an d’s i ns ur an ce co ve rag e du rin g t he ti m e p eri odin whi ch Ru tl an d h adhe r caracci de nt ; i t d idno t wai ve it s can cel la ti on th ro ug h a ccep ta nc e o f he r la te pa ym en t. Sec on d, M s. Dav is di d n ot ha ve th e actua l o r ap pa ren t au th or it y to en ga ge in anora l b in de r wit h R ut landfor ret ro act iv e co ve rag e o f th e cra sh . Thir d, Ru tl an d h as no t es tabl is he d apl au si bl e th eo ry of p ro m is so ry

est op pe l o n wh ic h s he can reco ve r. Andfin al ly, th e d is tri ct co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y ex cl ud in g J en ni fer Eb ert ’s affi da vi t. The di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly gran te d S ta te Farm ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t; th us , Ru tl an d’s m ot io n fo r pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t was pro pe rly den ie d. AFFIRMED.

13