Court Opinion

ID: 9667916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:57:40.022121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:41.519229
License: Public Domain

*514DUNN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I would affirm.
I cannot see any legal or equitable reason to permit an insurance company to cancel a man’s insurance under these facts. The insured had paid the premium requested for the six-month period; through the insurance company’s error, the premium paid was some $10 short of the premium to be charged. At the time the notice of cancellation was sent to insured’s last known address, the insurance company still held unearned premiums sufficient to keep the policy in effect. Admittedly, the insured did not receive the notice of cancellation as it was returned to the company with a post office marking “Moved, left no address.” The record is unclear as to whether he ever received the check for the unearned premium on the policy.
I would agree with the Minnesota Court that insurance coverage is too important to be left to the fine print of an insurance policy which permits cancellation of a policy without any actual notice to the insured —or without any real effort to locate him. This becomes more reprehensible when the cancellation was due to a company error, and the company still had unearned premium available to keep the policy in effect at the time the notice was mailed.
Thus the company is allowed to cancel a policy without actual notice for $10.20 deficiency in premium resulting from its own error at a time when it admittedly held unearned premium in the amount of $11.86.