Kates

Kates v. Workmen's Auto Insurance

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 443·45 Cal. App. 4th 494·52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 852·96 Daily Journal DAR 5501·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3395
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 10, 1996B081666California5,106 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

Does Insurance Code section 660 extend the period of an automobile policy written with a three-month term when the insured fails to pay the premium on time after a warning that coverage will expire unless the premium is paid? We conclude that it does not. Since the trial court ruled that coverage is extended in this situation, we reverse.

Factual and Procedural Summary

This action was tried on stipulated facts and we take our summary from the stipulation of the parties. The policy at issue was purchased by Gordon Dreyer in November 1984 from Workmen’s Auto Insurance Company (Workmen’s) through the Hatcher Insurance Agency. It had an original policy period of November 9, 1984, to May 9, 1985. Dreyer paid the premium to renew the policy for three months, extending the coverage period to August 9, 1985, at 12:01 a.m.

On July 10, 1985, Workmen’s sent Dreyer the document on which this case turns. Untitled, the form advised the insured: “To renew your policy, check one renewal payment option and return a copy of this notice with your payment for the amount shown for that option. If your payment is not received by 08/09/85 your policy cannot be renewed without a lapse in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.