Preview:

Mark A nderson e t al., v. Genera l Casualty In surance C o. f/k/a South ern Gua ranty Insurance Co., No. 25, September Term, 2007 HEADNOTE: INSUR ANCE - NOTIC E: Notice of can cellation sent to the insured, "care of" a third party, is proper notice when that third party's name and address is listed under the heading "Mailing Address" in the insurance contract. Furthermore, where the insured's actions demonstrate an intent to appoint that third party as his agent for purposes of receiving such notices, he is charged with knowledge of the cancellation.

In the Cir cuit C ourt for B altim ore C ity No. 24-C-05-006826 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 25 September Term, 2007 ____________________________________ MARK ANDERSON, ET AL. v. GENERAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY f/k/a SOUTHERN GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. ___________________________________ Bell, C.J. Raker Harrell Battaglia Greene Wilner, A lan M. (R etired, Spec ially Assigned) Cathell, D ale R. (Retire d, Specially Assigned), JJ. ____________________________________ Opinion by Greene, J. ____________________________________ Filed: November 14, 2007

This matter arises from an administrative complaint filed with the Maryland Insurance Administration as a result of Southern Guarantee Insurance Company's 1 cancellation of an insurance policy issued to Anderson's Exxon/JSM Enterprises Inc.2 Southern Guara ntee mailed the notic e of ca ncellatio n to An derson , addressed "care of" Ben Brown Insurance Age ncy, a t the a ddre ss listed o n the decl arati ons p age o f the policy. After an investigation, the Maryland Insurance Administration determined that Southern Guaranty had properly notified Anderson's Exxon of the cancellation. On judicial review, the Circuit Court affirmed the decision, as did the Court of Special Appeals on appeal. We are now asked to decide whether notice mailed to the insured, "care of" a third party listed in the declarations page, constitutes prop er notice sufficient to meet the statutory notice requirements. We shall hold that, because the terms of the insurance contract at issue provided a "mailing address" for the insured, written notice of intent to cancel the insurance policy mailed to that address complied with the statutory notice requirements for cancellation of the policy. Furtherm ore, becau se the insure d consen ted to the de signation of a third party as his agent to receive such notification or at least acquiesed in the designation, notice sent to that third party, consistent with the terms of the insurance contract, is proper notice. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

Southern Guaran ty Insurance C ompany is n ow kno wn as G eneral Ca sualty Insuran ce Co mpan y, but will h ereinaf ter be re ferred t o as "S outher n Gua ranty." Anderson's Exxon/JSM Enterprises Inc., hereinafter, will be referred to as "And erson's Exxo n."
2

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mark W. Anderson is the own er of an E xxon ga soline and s ervice station located in Ocean City, Maryland.3 Throughout the 26 years Anderson has operated the business, he has used the services of Benjamin F. Brow n Insurance Ag ency, Inc. ("Brown") to pro cure insurance for the gasoline and service station. When Anderson needed insurance coverage for automobile, towing, and road services, he contacted Brown. Because Brown could not directly procure insurance fo r these types of activities, Brown contacted Ashcraf t & Associates Insurance Agency, Inc., which placed the insurance with Southern Guarantee Insurance Company. Southern Guarantee then issued Anderson's Exxon a Commercial Garage Liability Policy with renewal effective dates of June 1, 2002, to June 1, 2003. The declarations page of the policy listed the Named Insured and Mailing Address as: 4 Anderson's Exxon/JSM Ent. Inc. c/o Ben Brown Insurance Agency 304 Compton Avenue Laurel, Maryland 20707-4330 Anderson received a copy of the policy from Brown, including the declarations page, via U.S. Mail. Anderson did not dispute the use of Brown's mailing address as his point of contact. Because the premiums for Anderson's policy were based on the size of his payroll, Southern Guaranty attempted to conduct a financial audit of Anderson's Exxon business,

Because Anderson and Anderson's Exxon have the same interests, for purposes of this d iscussion the y will be used interchan geab ly. There is no evidence in the record to indicate who gave Southern Guaranty the address listed in the declarations page. -24

3

through Profitworks, an outside audit company. Compliance with the audit was a condition of the policy, and if Anderso n failed to co mply with the audit cond ition, Southe rn Guara nty was permitted to cancel the policy in compliance with statutory notice requirements of Md. Code (1974, 20 06 Rep l. Vol.),

Download Anderson v. General Casualty.pdf

Maryland Law