Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Atlanta Casualty Co. v. Swinney
Citations: 315 Ark. 565; 868 S.W.2d 501; 1994 Ark. LEXIS 19Docket: 93-645
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; January 24, 1994; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
The Trial Court correctly determined that proof of mailing a notice of cancellation for an automobile liability policy suffices to establish notice of cancellation, even when the insured denies receipt. Mr. Swinney applied for car insurance with Atlanta Casualty Company on August 2, 1991, obtaining a policy binder effective until February 2, 1992, with Mercantile Bank as the loss payee. Atlanta later found that Mr. Swinney did not own the insured vehicle and issued a cancellation notice on August 29, 1991, with an effective date of September 18, 1991. Following a one-vehicle accident on September 19, 1991, Atlanta denied coverage, citing the cancellation notice. In support of its motion for summary judgment, Atlanta provided an affidavit from Stacey Sewell, who confirmed that Mr. Swinney's cancellation notice was among over 100 notices mailed that day. Despite Mr. Swinney's assertion of non-receipt, the Trial Court ruled that under Ark. Code Ann. 23-89-306, proof of mailing alone constituted sufficient notice, rendering receipt irrelevant. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, claiming a genuine issue of material fact existed due to Mr. Swinney's denial of receipt. Atlanta contended that the Court of Appeals' ruling effectively repealed the statutory requirement for proof of mailing. The applicable statutes (Ark. Code Ann. 23-89-304, 305, and 306) clearly indicate that mailing notice to the address in the policy is sufficient evidence of notice. The affidavit and postal certification confirmed timely mailing to both Mr. Swinney and Mercantile Bank, with no evidence presented by Mr. Swinney to challenge this proof. The Court of Appeals' reliance on prior cases was deemed inappropriate, as those cases predated the relevant statute or did not pertain to the Insurance Code. The original ruling was reinstated, with the Court reversing the Court of Appeals' decision and affirming the summary judgment in favor of Atlanta.