Ward v. Federal Kemper Insurance
62 Md. App. 351, 489 A.2d 91, 40 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 753 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurance policy cannot be lawfully canceled for nonpayment of premium if the premium is not actually due, which is the case when an alleged overpayment of a refund, represented by an unnegotiated check, remains under the insurer's control.
Facts:
- On May 19, 1981, Federal Kemper Insurance Company issued an automobile liability policy to Aaron Ward, which was scheduled to expire on November 17, 1981.
- On August 4, 1981, due to a change in Ward's vehicles, Federal Kemper sent Ward a $12.00 check, drawn on The Citizens National Bank of Decatur, Illinois, representing a refund of an overpaid premium.
- Ward received the $12.00 check but never negotiated it.
- Soon after sending the check, Federal Kemper discovered that the proper refund should have been $4.50, not $12.00.
- On August 18, Federal Kemper billed Ward for the $7.50 difference, which Ward did not recall receiving and never paid.
- Federal Kemper mailed Ward a notice of cancellation for nonpayment of the $7.50, effective October 11, 1981.
- Ward, due to domestic difficulties, had changed his address but did not notify Federal Kemper, as required by the policy.
- On November 15, 1981, Ward was involved in an automobile accident while driving the insured vehicle, and Federal Kemper declined to provide coverage.
Procedural Posture:
- Aaron Ward sued Federal Kemper Insurance Company in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding insurance coverage.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The hearing judge, believing summary judgment inappropriate for declaratory judgment actions, treated the proceedings as a hearing on the merits.
- The judge concluded that while the $7.50 was not due until the check was negotiated, Federal Kemper proceeded properly in assuming its bill was ignored and moving for cancellation.
- The Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted judgment in favor of Federal Kemper, ruling that the cancellation was proper and there was no insurance coverage at the time of the accident.
- Ward appealed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
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 owe a premium balance to an insurer for purposes of policy cancellation when the alleged balance arises from an unnegotiated refund check issued by the insurer, meaning the funds for that check remain in the insurer's bank account?
Opinions:
Majority - Adkins, Judge
No, an insured does not owe a premium balance to an insurer for purposes of policy cancellation when the alleged balance arises from an unnegotiated refund check issued by the insurer, because the funds remain under the insurer's control until the check is presented and honored. The court explained that a check is merely a conditional payment of an underlying obligation and does not operate as an assignment of funds in the drawee bank until accepted (§ 3-409(1) of the UCC). As the drawer, Federal Kemper's liability on the check was secondary and contingent upon dishonor (§ 3-413). Since Ward never presented the check for payment, the $12.00, including the disputed $7.50, remained in Federal Kemper's bank account. Thus, Federal Kemper's underlying obligation to refund $4.50 was never actually discharged, and Ward never acquired a proprietary interest in the funds. The court concluded that Ward owed no premium to Federal Kemper at the time of cancellation, rendering the cancellation unlawful.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the legal nature of checks as conditional payments under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), distinguishing between the issuance of a check and the actual transfer of funds. It reinforces that until a check is presented and honored, the funds represented by it remain under the control of the drawer. For insurance companies, this means they cannot rely on an unnegotiated refund check to assert a premium deficiency and subsequently cancel a policy. The ruling emphasizes the importance of actual payment or transfer of funds to establish an outstanding debt, preventing unilateral cancellation based on a theoretical liability that has not materialized. This impacts contract disputes, insurance law, and any commercial transaction where payment via unnegotiated checks is at issue.
