Alcazar v. Hayes
1998 WL 884549, 982 SW2d 845 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insured's failure to provide timely notice under an insurance policy does not automatically result in forfeiture of coverage. Instead, a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the insurer arises, and the burden shifts to the insured to prove the insurer was not prejudiced by the delay.
Facts:
- On November 3, 1995, Christopher Hayes gave his co-worker, David Alcazar, a ride from a farm where they both worked.
- Because Alcazar was extremely dirty, Hayes had him ride on the trunk of the car.
- During the drive, Alcazar was flung from the trunk and struck his head on the pavement, suffering injuries that included permanent brain damage.
- At the time, Alcazar was covered by a Family Automobile Insurance Policy issued by Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) to his mother, Deborah Wheatley.
- The policy contained an uninsured motorist provision that required notice of an accident be given 'As soon as possible'.
- Alcazar and his mother did not provide notice of the accident to GEICO until approximately one year after it occurred.
- They delayed giving notice because they mistakenly believed the policy did not apply and were not immediately aware of the full extent of Alcazar's brain injury.
Procedural Posture:
- David Alcazar filed a complaint in trial court against Christopher Hayes and added his mother's insurer, GEICO, as a defendant under the state's uninsured motorist statute.
- GEICO filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it could not be sued because Alcazar had breached the policy's notice provision.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of GEICO.
- Alcazar, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment for GEICO, the appellee, holding it was bound by existing Supreme Court precedent.
- Alcazar then appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an insured's failure to comply with an insurance policy's notice provision automatically forfeit coverage, regardless of whether the insurer was prejudiced by the delay?
Opinions:
Majority - Drowota, Justice
No. An insured's failure to provide timely notice does not automatically forfeit the insurance policy; forfeiture is only appropriate if the insurer was prejudiced by the delay. The court overrules prior precedent and joins the modern trend, holding that it is inequitable to enforce a strict forfeiture based on a technicality when the insurer has suffered no harm. Public policy favors compensating tort victims and disfavors the forfeiture of insurance coverage based on the adhesive, non-negotiated nature of insurance contracts. Therefore, when notice is untimely, a rebuttable presumption of prejudice arises. The burden then shifts to the insured to prove, by presenting competent evidence, that the insurer was not prejudiced by the delay in notification.
Analysis:
This case represents a major shift in Tennessee insurance law, abandoning the long-held traditional rule of strict compliance with notice provisions in favor of the modern 'notice-prejudice' rule. By overruling precedent like Phoenix Cotton and Creasy, the court aligns Tennessee with the vast majority of other jurisdictions. The decision protects insureds from forfeiting coverage due to technical breaches that cause no actual harm to the insurer. However, by establishing a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, the court places a significant evidentiary burden on the insured, which will shape litigation strategies in future untimely notice cases.
