United States District Court, Eastern District; Docket No. 86-CV-75307-DT;
Judge Julian A. Cook, Jr.; Unpublished
Official Federal Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Nature and Scope of PPI Benefits (Property Damage and Loss of Use) [§3121(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Cancellation and Rescission of Insurance Policies
CASE SUMMARY:
In this written Opinion, Judge Cook interpreted the cancellation provisions of Allstate's no-fault insurance policy to find that plaintiffs were entitled to property loss coverage because they had not received notice of cancellation for non-payment of premium.
The evidence presented showed that the insurance company claimed to have sent a notice of cancellation for non-payment of premium to both the insured and a bank holding a lien on the vehicle. Both the insured and the bank claims not to have received this notice. Prior to the date Allstate claims to have sent this notice, Allstate accepted a late payment from the insured following an earlier notice of cancellation for non-payment of premium. After the loss, Allstate also accepted another late payment, but also notified the insured that there was probably not coverage for the loss.
Judge Cook rejected the insureds' argument that the two instances of accepting late payments constituted a course of dealing which amounted to a waiver by Allstate of its right to cancel. The facts were insufficient, according to Judge Cook, to establish that Allstate had habitually accepted late payments as a part of its course of dealing with the insureds.
Judge Cook held that the provisions of MCLA 500.3023 governed the requirements of cancellation of this particular policy. The provisions of §3224(2) requiring certified mail notification were held not to be applicable, because of express statutory provisions stating that Chapter 32 provisions are not applicable to cancellations occasioned by non-payment of premiums. Judge Cook found that the provisions of MCLA 5003020 required the actual receipt of notice of the cancellation for non-payment of premium, and that mailing of notice should be "prima facie proof of notice." Here, the fact that the bank, as well as the insured, did not receive the notice was sufficient to overcome the statutory presumption of receipt which arises from a proof of mailing.
