Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 164725; Published
Judges Corrigan, O'Connell, and G. S. Allen, Jr.; _____(with Judge O’Connell, Concurring in Result); Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 211 Mich App 369; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Casualty Insurance Policies – Minimum Coverages and Required Provisions (MCL 500.3009)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this per curiam published Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court holding that even though the insured had received actual notice of the defendant insurance company's cancellation of his policy, the effort to cancel the insurance was ineffective because it did not comply with the provisions of MCLA 500.3020 requiring that the insurer mail notice of cancellation "at the insured's address last known to the insurer or an authorized agent of the insurer" with a "not less than 10 days written notice of cancellation."
Plaintiff purchased an auto insurance policy from Automobile Club Insurance to run from May 25 to November 25,1985. Plaintiff fell behind in his payments, and on July 8,1988, a computer-generated notice of cancellation was prepared at defendant's Dearborn office, showing plaintiffs address on Heatherwood. On the same date, July 8,1988, plaintiff visited Auto Club's "authorized agent" in Flint and submitted a change of address, the new address being on Laurentain Court Defendant's computers did not permit input from the Flint office, so the agent mailed the change of address to the Dearborn office. On Monday, July 11, 1988, the notice of cancellation was mailed from the Dearborn office to plaintiffs former address on Heatherwood. The notice stated that the effective date of cancellation was July 25,1988. Plaintiff discovered the notice of cancellation when he stopped by the Heatherwood address where his ex-wife and children resided. This actual receipt of the notice of cancellation occurred between July 25 and August 1, 1988. Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident on August 1,1988.
Defendant contended that the policy was cancelled before August 1,1988 and, therefore, defendant refused to pay insurance benefits to plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed the cancellation was ineffective because it did not comply with the provisions of MCLA 500.3020 which require:
That the policy may be cancelled at any time by the insurer, by mailing to the insured at the insured's address last known to the insurer or an authorized agent of the insurer, with postage fully prepaid, a not less than 10 days written notice of cancellation with or without tender of the excess paid premium or assessment above the pro rata premium for the expired time. (emphasis added)
The Court of Appeals held that the statute plainly requires that the insurer is obliged to mail the notice of cancellation to the "most current address known to either the insurer or its authorized agent." In this case, the Laurentian address was the most current address known to Auto Club's authorized agent in Flint. Therefore, the notice did not comply with the statutory requirement.
The court also addressed the issue of whether plaintiffs fortuitous receipt of the notice made the cancellation effective notwithstanding the defective mailing. The court held that in regard to the cancellation of automobile liability insurance coverage, defects in mailing are not cured by the insured's receipt of the cancellation notice. Dorsey v Michigan Mutual Liability Co, 72 Mich App 607 (1976). The court held that the Legislature did not intend for actual notice to be a substitute for mailing in compliance with MCLA 500.3020, which governs cancellation of no-fault automobile policies. In comparing the provisions of MCLA 500.3224 governing automobile liability insurance policies with MCLA 500.3020 governing no-fault automobile policies, the court stated that although there are differences in the statutes, there is no evidence that the Legislature intended that the mailing requirements of §3020 should be less strictly enforced than §3224. Therefore, while actual notice by the insured is necessary for cancellation to take effect, actual notice alone is insufficient when the notice was not mailed in compliance with the statute.
The court further held that in addition to proper mailing, the statute also requires that an insured have ten days of actual notice before the cancellation is effective. In the instant case, the shortened notice to plaintiff did not meet this standard. Judge O'Connell concurred in the result only.
