Per its company records, State Farm sent a notice of cancellation of a homeowners policy it issued to Betty Sisson. The company sent the notice, by regular mail, to both Sisson and her mortgagee on January 15, 1998. The notice was effective on the policy’s expiration date of February 18, 1998 and the insurer had a certificate of mailing for the notice sent to Sisson (but not one for the mortgagee’s copy).

Sisson’s policy was cancelled because an insurance company inspection revealed that the house was very poorly maintained and it no longer qualified for continued coverage. Both the policyholder and the mortgage company claimed that they never received the notice. The denials were the result of the insurer denying a claim the policyholder made after her home was destroyed by fire on February 26, 1998. The loss date was more than a week later than when the coverage expired.

In February 1999, Sisson sued State Farm for a breach of duty, alleging that it failed to perform under the insurance contract. The insurer requested a summary judgment from a district court. The court was asked to rule that the insurer’s action, supported by a certificate of mailing, ended their obligation to provide coverage. Rather than rule on the matter, the district court sent a certified question to the state supreme court. The district court asked whether the policyholder’s statement that she did not receive a termination notice, in light of the fact that the insurer possessed valid proof of mailing, created a legal basis upon which the lower court could rule.

The state’s high court considered the district court’s question by reviewing several relevant cases and the following facts:

• The insurer appeared to have an authentic mailing certificate from the U.S. Post Office
• The certificate’s authenticity was not challenged by either the policyholder or the mortgage company
• The certificate contained a sufficient level of detail (policyholder name, current address, policy no., etc.)
• The use of the certificate as proof that notice was sent was consistent with the homeowner policy provision
• The policyholder and mortgage company’s only evidence of not receiving a notice was their claim that notice was never received

In its opinion, the court’s appropriate response was to answer "no" to the lower court’s question.

[Editor’s Note: The lower court pended action on the insurer’s summary judgment request, awaiting the higher court’s response. While no other action was reported, the negative response was likely to result in the lower court granting the insurer’s request.]

Betty Sisson, Plaintiff-Respondent v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant-Petitioner, AlaSCt. No. 1000852 Filed December 21,2001. 2001 Ala. LEXIS 463. Certified Question Answered. CCH Fire and Casualty Cases Paragraph 6834