Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 241196; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Gage and Kelly; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Cancellation and Rescission of Insurance Policies
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed grant of summary disposition in favor of the insurance company on the issue of whether or not the policy had been properly renewed.
In this case, plaintiff’s policy with Transport Insurance Company provided that it would expire at 11:59 p.m. on June 15, 2000, unless payment was received by that date. The renewal notice stated that the renewal payment must be postmarked “on or before” June 15, 2000, and suggested that the insured allow five days for mailing and processing.
Plaintiff was involved in an accident on June 18, 2000, and on June 19, 2000, personally delivered the renewal premium to an agent for defendant and reported the accident. The defendant denied coverage on the basis of non-renewal of the policy.
Plaintiff claimed that because the renewal notice required a postmark date of June 15, 2000 and suggested allowing five days for mailing, it was reasonable to assume that defendant did not expect to receive payment before June 20, 2000.
In upholding the trial court grant of summary disposition, the Court of Appeals held that the language of the policy is clear and unambiguous, and admits of but one interpretation. The renewal notice stated that the renewal premium was due June 15, 2000, and that a premium sent by mail must be postmarked on or before that date. Nothing in the notice indicated that a payment made in person could be made later than June 15, 2000.
