Opinion ID: 2514437
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: EQUITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. CITY OF JENKS IS DISPOSITIVE OF TODAY'S CAUSE

Text: ¶5 This court's pronouncement in Equity Insurance Company v. City of Jenks [9] is dispositive of St. Clair's quest for reversal of the summary ruling. That opinion, promulgated earlier this term, dealt with the same insurer, the identical policy cancellation provision, and a similar set of facts. [10] It teaches Equity's monthly billing statement, which included notice that the policy may be cancelled in the event of insured's failure timely to pay the premium due, was insufficient to give notice of cancellation under the terms of that policy. [11] The court explained this was so because (1) notice of a policy's cancellation cannot be given before the occurrence of the event that triggers the insurer's option to cancel [12] and (2) notice of the policy's cancellation must be clear and unequivocal. [13] Under the terms of Equity's policy its statement in the invoice concerning the policy's cancellation for nonpayment of the premium before the payment came due was hence ineffective. Likewise, Equity's anticipatory statement in the invoice that the policy may be cancelled upon an insured's failure to pay the premium due, constituted neither a clear nor an unequivocal in praesenti [14] cancellation of the policy. [15] ¶6 St. Clair urges the policy's cancellation provision for nonpayment of premiums is ambiguous at best. Although this argument was not urged by the parties in City of Jenks, dictum contained in that case reveals the contract was not likely viewed as ambiguous. [16] Equity's monthly premium invoice cum notice of cancellation in the event of nonpayment of a premium was not sufficient as in praesenti notice of the policy's cancellation. In accordance with the rationale in City of Jenks, the trial court's summary judgment for Equity must be reversed as contrary to law. Our conclusion makes it unnecessary also to reach for review the second question  whether the terms of the Oklahoma Consumer Credit Protection Code, 14A O.S. 2001 § 4-304, apply to this controversy.