Shepard v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 46647
| Decision Date | 09 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 46647,46647 |
| Citation | 504 P.2d 228,210 Kan. 652 |
| Parties | Lloyd W. SHEPARD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
An automobile casualty insurance policy, written in 1968 for a definite term and without any reference to renewal, expired at the end of the term. No estoppel or implied agreement to issue a new policy arose merely from the insurance agent's practice of notifying policyholders that their policies were about to expire and inquiring whether a new policy was desired.
Charles S. Scott, of Scott, Scott, Scott & Jackson, Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Edwin D. Smith, of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
Appellant sued for collision damages to his automobile under an insurance policy which had been issued for a term of one year from June 12, 1968, to June 12, 1969. The policy contained no provision for renewal. The premium was payable (and paid) in two installments.
The loss occurred on October 5, 1969, four months after the policy expiration date. At the time of the loss no renewal premium had been paid or tendered.
The premium for the policy term was paid one-half in June, 1968, when the policy was issued, and the other half in December. The defendant notified the plaintiff that the December installment was due and billed him for it prior to payment.
Reduced to its fundamentals (though he speaks in his petition in terms of cancellation) the appellant's claim is that he is entitled to have the policy considered as renewed because there was a custom, on which he relied, that the insurer would give notice that the policy was expiring and that it would be renewed for a stated premium, failing in which the insurer was estopped from denying liability beyond the term.
The appellant describes his position in terms of estoppel arising from the alleged custom and complains that the trial court, in granting summary judgment for the defendant, did not give him an opportunity to prove an existing custom and his right to rely on it.
We hold that where a policy of this kind was written for a definite term without any reference to a right of renewal the policy expired at the end of that term-in this case on June 12, 1969. Only by the tender of premium for an additional term and its acceptance by the insurer could the policy be continued in force beyond the initial term.
Accordingly, if the insurer followed a practice (as seems to be the case) of notifying its policyholders that their policies were about to expire and calling attention to the premium for a new policy, it must be considered as an act of courtesy to the insured and an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Unruh v. Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co.
...which specifies the period of its duration terminates on the expiration of such period. See Shepard v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 210 Kan. 652, 653, 504 P.2d 228, 229 (1972); Bartlett & Co., Grain v. Curry, 1 Kan.App.2d 242, 247, 563 P.2d 1096, 1101 (1977) (citing 17 Am.Jur.2d Cont......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mundorf
...(1991); Citta v. Camden Fire Ins. Ass'n, Inc., N.J.Super., 152 N.J.Super. 76, 377 A.2d 779 (1977); Shepard v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., Kan.Supr., 210 Kan. 652, 504 P.2d 228 (1972). Unless there is a policy or statutory direction to the contrary, an insurer is not under a legal duty to ......
-
Federal Dep. Ins. Corp. v. Timbalier Towing Co.
...policy expiration. Marker v. Preferred Fire Insurance Co., 211 Kan. 427, 506 P.2d 1163, 1170 (1973); Shepard v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 210 Kan. 652, 504 P.2d 228, 229 (1972); Kapahua v. Hawaiian Insurance & Guaranty Co., 50 Haw. 644, 447 P.2d 669, 670 (1968); Kimball v. Clin......
-
United Heritage Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Zech
...922, 925 (Iowa 1990) ; Tomeoka v. Mid-Century Ins. Co. , 118 Ariz. 394, 577 P.2d 245, 248 (1978) ; Shepard v. U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co. , 210 Kan. 652, 504 P.2d 228, 229 (1972) ; Waynesville Sec. Bank v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 499 S.W.2d 218, 220 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973). If this condition precedent ......