United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
2d 1228
Unpublished Disposition
I.
2
Following a two-day trial, the district court found that on September 14, 1982,
Quality mailed to Humphreys at the address stated on the policy a notice which
advised that a three-month premium payment was due on October 7, 1982.
While there was testimony at trial that Humphreys received and read this
notice, the record is inconclusive on this particular point. It is undisputed,
however, that Humphreys did not pay the premium due on October 7, 1982 and
that a letter dated October 20, 1982 advised Humphreys that his policy had
expired upon nonpayment of premium on October 7, 1982.
The district court concluded that the Quality Insurance policy issued to
Humphreys was in full force and effect on the date of the accident because
W.Va.Code Sec. 33-6A-1, et seq., provided that an automobile liability
insurance policy may only be terminated by cancellation or non-renewal. The
district court further held that Quality had primary liability coverage pursuant
to the policy issued to Humphreys and that State Farm had secondary liability
coverage pursuant to the uninsured motorist provisions in the policies of
insurance issued to the decedent, Robert J. Shepherd. This appeal followed.
II.
6
Quality argues that the district court erred in holding that the policy issued to
Humphreys was in full force and effect on the day of the accident--October 30,
1982. Quality contends that the last Humphreys' policy expired on its own
terms October 7, 1982 and that no subsequent policy was contracted by
Quality. Therefore, Quality maintains, the West Virginia statutes requiring
notice of cancellation and non-renewal are not applicable to this case.
It is clear from the record that Humphreys himself believed that the policy had
expired on October 7, 1982. At trial Humphreys testified that he knew the
policy had expired at the time of the accident. When asked why he had not
contacted Quality after the accident, Humphreys replied: "I didn't have no
insurance." (Joint Appendix, p. 56). Further, Quality agents also testified that
the policy term was for three months. The West Virginia courts have long held
that "the payment or agreement to pay an insurance premium is a consideration
for an insurance contract. If the premium is not paid, there is no insurance."
Parsley v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 280 S.E.2d 703, 707
(W.Va.1981). See also, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Smith, 172
S.E.2d 708 (W.Va.1970); Hare v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance
Company, 173 S.E. 772 (W.Va.1934). Here, all of the evidence suggests that
both the insured and the insurer contracted for a three-month automobile policy
which the insured allowed to expire at the end of the stated policy period when
he failed to pay the premium. We find that the Quality insurance policy was a
three-month policy that expired by its own terms on October 7, 1982.
10
11
Moreover, the West Virginia Supreme Court has recognized the difference
between the concepts of "cancellation" and "expiration." See Farmers' and
Merchants' Bank v. Balboa Insurance Company, 299 S.E.2d 1 (W.Va.1982). In
Farmers' and Merchants', the court stated that "we are concerned with the nonrenewal of an expiring policy rather than the cancellation of a policy." Id. at 2.
12
The district court concluded that the Quality Insurance policy issued to
Humphreys was in full force and effect on the date of the accident. This
conclusion was based on the erroneous legal conclusion that Quality failed to
follow the statutory procedures required to terminate Humphreys' insurance
policy by either cancellation or non-renewal. The policy was not cancelled, nor
did Quality refuse to renew the policy. Rather, the policy expired by its own
terms. Therefore, Quality was not required to give Humphreys notice under
either the insurance contract or relevant West Virginia statutes and the policy
expired on October 7, 1982.
13
Accordingly, the district court's judgment that the Quality insurance policy was
in full force and effect and that Quality had primary liability coverage affecting
the estate of Robert J. Shepherd is reversed.
14
REVERSED.
With regard to the policy term, the insurance policy reads, in relevant part, as
follows:
(The insurance company) agrees with the insured ... in consideration of the
payment of the premium and in reliance upon the statements in the declarations
and subject to all the terms of the policy:
***