Title: National Bank of Fredericksburg v. Virginia Farm Bureau Ins.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 040418
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: January 14, 2005

Present:  Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Kinser, Lemons, and 
Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J. 
 
NATIONAL BANK OF FREDERICKSBURG 
    OPINION BY 
SENIOR JUSTICE CHARLES S. RUSSELL 
 
v.  Record No. 040418  
         January 14, 2005 
 
VIRGINIA FARM BUREAU FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG 
John W. Scott, Jr., Judge 
 
 
This appeal presents the question whether an insurance 
company, by giving a notice of renewal of an automobile policy 
containing a “union mortgage clause” to a lienholder, provided 
a separate and independent insurance of the lienholder’s 
interest that would survive the lapse of the underlying policy 
caused by the insured’s failure to pay the renewal premium. 
 
Eric Adams and his wife, Carrie Lynn Adams, (the Adams) 
owned a 1997 Chevrolet Tahoe that they insured with Virginia 
Farm Bureau Fire and Casualty Company (the Insurer).  The car 
was subject to a lien securing a loan made to the Adams by the 
National Bank of Fredericksburg (the Bank).  The terms of the 
loan required the Adams to maintain insurance protecting the 
Bank’s interest in the car.  The Insurer issued a policy 
covering the car effective July 5, 2001 and expiring January 
5, 2002.  The policy contained a “loss payable” clause 
protecting the Bank’s interest. 
 
2
 
On December 6, 2001, while the policy was still in 
effect, the Insurer sent the Bank a document captioned 
“Automobile Renewal Declaration **** Effective 01/05/02.”  The 
renewal declaration stated that the new policy period was to 
be from January 5, 2002 until July 5, 2002.  It also specified 
the coverage to be included in the renewal policy, which was 
identical to that provided by the original policy, and 
referred to the original policy number.  The renewal 
declaration contained a loss payable clause, similar to that 
contained in the original policy, of a kind commonly described 
as a “union mortgage clause.”  The clause stated, in pertinent 
part, that “this insurance as to the interest of the . . . 
Lienholder shall not be invalidated by any act or neglect of 
the . . . Owner of the within described automobile . . . .” 
The clause also provided that “in case the . . . Owner . . . 
shall neglect to pay any premium due under such policy the 
Lienholder shall, on demand, pay the same.” 
 
At approximately the same time it sent the renewal 
declaration to the Bank, the Insurer sent the Adams a “renewal 
notice” offering to renew the policy but warning them that the 
policy would “expire at 12:01 A.M. on 01/05/02 unless the 
minimum payment is made by the due date.”  On January 9, 2002, 
the Insurer sent the Adams a “Final Notice” stating that 
payment of the premium had been due January 5, that a minimum 
 
3
payment of $422.03 was “due now” and that “this is the last 
notice you will receive.”  The Adams made no attempt to pay 
any part of the renewal premium until after January 19, 2002.  
The Insurer did not inform the Bank, until after that date, 
that the premium was unpaid and never demanded that the bank 
pay it. 
 
The Chevrolet Tahoe was damaged in a single-car collision 
on January 19, 2002 while driven by Carrie Lynn Adams and was 
classified by the Bank as a total loss, in that the cost of 
repair or replacement exceeded the balance due on the loan.  
On January 23, 2002, the Insurer sent a notice to the Bank 
stating that the Bank’s coverage as a lienholder had expired 
on January 5, 2002.  The Adams made a prompt claim to the 
Insurer for the loss, but the Insurer denied it on the ground 
that the policy had not been in force on January 19, when the 
accident occurred. 
 
The Bank brought this action by a warrant in debt in the 
general district court, seeking to recover from the Insurer 
$14,816.43, the unpaid balance due on its loan to the Adams. 
The Insurer removed the case to the circuit court and the 
parties submitted the case on a written stipulation of facts, 
the relevant documents, additional evidence heard ore tenus 
and arguments of counsel.  The court, in a written opinion, 
held that the policy had not been canceled by the Insurer but 
 
4
had simply expired by its own terms when the Adams failed to 
accept the Insurer’s offer to renew it upon the Adams’ payment 
of the premium.  Because there was no policy in force on the 
date of the loss, the trial court reasoned, neither the Adams 
nor the Bank had any contractual rights against the Insurer.  
The trial court entered final judgment for the Insurer and we 
awarded the Bank this appeal. 
 
The Bank contends that the renewal declaration sent to it 
by the Insurer created “separate and independent insurance” of 
the Bank’s interest in the car as a lienholder and that such 
insurance was a contractual obligation of the Insurer.  The 
Bank argues that the contract of insurance thus created was 
supported by consideration in two respects: (a) by the 
Insurer’s right to demand payment of the premium by the Bank 
in the event of non-payment by the insured, and (b) by the 
Bank’s forbearance in exercising its right to foreclose in the 
event of the insured’s breach of the covenant to keep the car 
covered by insurance.  The notice sent by the Insurer to the 
Bank after the accident, stating that the Bank’s coverage had 
expired on January 5, 2002, was, the Bank contends, a 
unilateral effort by the Insurer retroactively to cancel the 
“separate and independent insurance” created by the renewal 
declaration.  That effort, the Bank says, was ineffectual 
because the “union mortgage clause” expressly provided that 
 
5
the Insurer must give the Bank ten days notice before 
canceling, thus giving the Bank an opportunity either to 
obtain other insurance or to foreclose.  The Insurer gave the 
Bank no advance notice of intent to cancel.∗ 
 
In New Brunswick Fire Ins. Co. v. Morris Plan Bank, 136 
Va. 402, 407-408, 118 S.E. 236, 237-38 (1923), we considered 
the distinction between a simple “loss payable clause” and a 
“union mortgage clause” like that under consideration here.  
In that case, the owner of the insured car had, during the 
existence of New Brunswick’s policy and without the knowledge 
of either New Brunswick or the lienholder bank, purchased 
duplicate insurance on the car from another insurance company, 
an act that rendered New Brunswick’s policy void under a 
specific policy provision inserted to prevent fraud.  The New 
                     
∗ A witness for the Insurer testified that the renewal 
declaration was generated and sent to the Bank a month before 
the policy was to expire, at the same time a bill for the 
renewal premium was sent to the owner, as a matter of routine.  
A witness for the Bank testified that the Bank relied on it by 
putting the new expiration date into the Bank’s computer to 
show “when that account needed to be monitored again for 
insurance purposes.”  The Bank does not contend, however, that 
its cause of action is founded upon its reliance, to its 
detriment, upon the Insurer’s misleading promise of future 
conduct.  Indeed, we expressly decided, in W. J. Schafer 
Assoc., Inc. v. Cordant, Inc. 254 Va. 514, 521, 493 S.E.2d 
512, 516 (1997), that the doctrine of promissory estoppel 
should not be adopted in Virginia.  The Bank’s claim is based 
entirely upon its contention that there was a new policy of 
insurance covering its lienholder’s interest beginning January 
5, 2002. 
 
 
6
Brunswick policy contained a “loss payable clause” providing 
simply: “Loss, if any, payable to [the bank], as their 
interest may appear.”  Id. at 403-04, 118 S.E. at 236.  We 
held that there was no insurance in existence at the time of 
the loss because of the owner’s act in obtaining duplicate 
insurance and that the lienholder had no more right to recover 
under the policy than the owner had.  The lienholder’s 
interest was collateral to that of the owner and its rights 
against the insurer were no greater than the owner’s.  In so 
holding, we pointed out that the lienholder could have avoided 
that result by requiring a “union mortgage clause,” such as 
that considered here.  We said: 
This clause has been frequently construed, and the 
authorities are unanimous in holding that it acts as a 
separate and independent insurance of the mortgagee’s 
interest, to this extent, at least, that no act or 
omission on the part of the owner, which occurs after 
the issuance of the policy, shall affect the mortgagee’s 
right to recover. 
 
Id. at 408, 118 S.E. at 237-38. 
 
If the Adams had, by some act or omission during the 
policy term, rendered the coverage void, as the owner did in 
New Brunswick, the result here would be opposite to that in 
New Brunswick because of the effect of the “union mortgage 
clause.”  The question before us is different.  The contract 
of insurance had expired at the time of the accident because 
                                                                
 
 
7
of the Adams’ failure to accept the Insurer’s offer to renew 
the policy by paying the required part of the renewal premium. 
The Adams, therefore, had no rights against the Insurer on 
January 19, 2002.  The determinative question is whether the 
renewal declaration sent to the Bank by the Insurer on 
December 6, 2001, created independent coverage of the Bank’s 
interest in the car effective from January 5, 2002, until July 
5, 2002, whether Adams purchased coverage for that period or 
not. 
 
The authorities are in substantial agreement that the 
“union mortgage clause” creates an independent contract 
between the insurer and the lienholder that cannot be defeated 
by the owner’s wrongful or negligent acts.  The lienholder is 
not a beneficiary, however.  Rather, the lienholder’s coverage 
is subject to all the terms of the policy existing between the 
insurer and the owner.  4 Lee R. Russ & Thomas F. Segala, 
Couch on Insurance 3d § 65:32 (1996 & Supp. 2004).  It is not 
a disconnected contract, but is “engrafted upon the contract 
of insurance contained in the policy itself and is to be 
rendered certain and understood by reference to the policy 
itself.”  The “union mortgage clause” does not nullify the 
terms of the original contract, “but creates a new contract 
containing those provisions the insurer made with the insured 
personally.”  Iowa Nat’l. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Central Mortg.& 
 
8
Inv. Co., 708 P.2d 480, 483 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985) (quoting 
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Western Fire Ins. Co., 457 
S.W.2d 234, 236-37 (Mo. App. 1970)). 
 
Because the lienholder’s coverage is subject to all the 
terms of the original policy except for his protection against 
the owner’s wrongful or negligent acts, the lienholder is 
bound by the time limitations and procedural requirements the 
original policy contains.  4 Couch on Insurance 3d, §§ 65:46-
47. 
 
Applying these principles to the question before us, it 
is apparent that the underlying policy expired by its own 
terms on January 5, 2002 and that the “separate and 
independent insurance” afforded the Bank by the “union 
mortgage clause” was subject to the same terms.  Because the 
policy was never cancelled by any party, its provision 
requiring ten days notice prior to cancellation never took 
effect. 
 
The policy contained no provision for automatic renewal 
and imposed no duty upon any party to take any steps to renew 
it.  Insurance coverage on the car would continue after its 
expiration date only if the owner and the Insurer entered into 
a new contract.  As noted above, the Insurer made an offer to 
renew, but the owner failed to accept it and, as a result, 
there was no contract of insurance covering the car on January 
 
9
19, 2002, the date of the accident.  This result follows from 
the terms of the policy itself, to which the Bank’s coverage 
was also subject.  Because the relationship between the Bank 
and the Insurer was not a “disconnected contract” but 
contained the “provisions the insurer made with the insured 
personally,” the renewal declaration was ineffectual to create 
new insurance in the Bank’s favor where no contract of 
insurance existed between the Insurer and the insured. 
 
We agree with the trial court’s analysis and will affirm 
the judgment. 
Affirmed.