Notification of non-renewal of a policy for the exclusion of a spouse, as well as the certified postal notification of termination of coverage, is sufficient notice of a non-renewal for coverage.

The plaintiff was issued an insurance policy that included her husband's vehicle, but the insurer later discovered her husband's drivers license was suspended or revoked. Due to the Driver Exclusion Agreement, the plaintiff's husband and his vehicle were not renewed under the policy. Prior to the end of the policy, the plaintiff was sent a letter by certified mail stating her policy would not be renewed due to her husband's driving record; however, the plaintiff contended she never received the letter. After the policy ended, the plaintiff's vehicle was stolen, and she was subsequently denied coverage. She then filed suit for (1) common law breach of contract, (2) statutory breach of contract and (3) promissory estoppel. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the three claims, which the trial court granted. However, the plaintiff appealed, arguing there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding: (1) whether proper notice was given regarding termination of coverage; (2) whether the insurer's denial of coverage was arbitrary or capricious; and (3) whether the trial court erred in granting the motion on the issue of promissory estoppel. The court held that (1) the insurer's evidence regarding the certified letter was sufficient notice; (2) that the denial, due to the Driver's Exclusion Agreement, was not arbitrary or capricious because it was in line with the insurer's guidelines for denial; and (3) that the promissory estoppel claim failed because the insured did not establish that a "promise" was articulated.

Case Law Alert, 3rd Quarter 2013