Opinion ID: 1239296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: effect of continuous coverage provision on injured members of the public

Text: 2. The continuous coverage regulation provides that it shall not be cancelled until thirty days after the insurance company gives written notice to the commission. By its express terms, the regulation continues coverage until the PSC actually receives notice of cancellation. [13] Other courts provide persuasive authority that an injured member of the public may recover under the continuous coverage rule based on the insurance company's failure to file a Form K terminating coverage. [14] Unlike many cases addressing the effect of the continuous coverage regulation, this case does not involve litigation between the insurer and insured or between two insurance companies. In those situations, courts generally have held that the insurance company that provided the expired policy is not liable to its insured or another insurer based on the continuous coverage regulation. [15] In a case involving two insurance companies, the Florida Supreme Court held that the predecessor insurance company that provided motor carrier liability coverage and failed to file a notice of policy expiration with the Florida PSC was not liable to the successor insurance company because the purpose of the notice requirement was to protect the public against injury caused by a motor carrier's negligence, not to diminish a current insurer's liability. [16] That court expressly reserved the issue in our case: whether the predecessor insurance company was liable to third-party beneficiaries of the policy when the company failed to file the required notice of expiration. [17] When it considered that question, the Court of Appeals of Georgia held that the insurance company was liable to injured members of the public based on the continuous coverage provision of the PSC rules. In Elliott v. Leavitt, [18] the court held that the insurance company that had not cancelled its certified coverage at the time of the collision, despite the expiration of the policy, was a proper defendant in a wrongful death action. Since the insurance company did not give the required notice of cancellation to the commission, it was legally obligated to pay the plaintiffs. [U]ntil proper notice is given to the commission, the policy is effective for the benefit of the public. [19] In this case, Liberty Mutual filed a form certifying that it provided liability insurance for Senn Trucking effective May 27, 1996. That certificate of insurance stated that it could not be cancelled without giving thirty days notice of cancellation in writing to the commission. Although Liberty Mutual cancelled the policy, it did not file written notice of the cancellation with the commission. Because the policy continued until the PSC received proper written notice of cancellation and Liberty Mutual did not file a Form K cancelling the policy with the commission before Adam DeHart was injured on May 28, 1988, we conclude that Liberty Mutual is liable to the DeHarts based on the continuous coverage provision of the Georgia PSC regulations. Questions answered.