Inac Corp. v. Underwriters At Lloyd's

OPINION

The main issue in this case is whether Appellant INAC Corp. (“INAC”) complied with TEX. INS. CODE ANN. art. 24.17(d) (Vernon Supp. 2000) when it sent notice of cancellation to Houstoun Woodward Eason Gentle Tomforde Anderson, Inc. d/b/a Insurance Alliance (“Insurance Alliance”)–a company that was authorized by the Underwriter appellees to act as their agent for receiving notices of cancellation from the insured–Midcon Offshore, Inc. (“Midcon”). INAC appeals from a summary judgment denying recovery of unearned premiums allegedly due upon cancellation of two insurance policies. The trial court granted motions for summary judgment in favor of appellees–the Underwriters, Insurance Alliance, and Gary D. “Bo” Burris. The trial court denied INAC’s motions for summary judgment against the appellees. We hold that the trial court should have denied the Underwriters’ motion for summary judgment against INAC because TEX. INS. CODE ANN. art. 24.17(d) allowed INAC to mail notice of cancellation to the Underwriters in care of Insurance Alliance; however, we hold that the trial court properly denied INAC’s motion for summary judgment against the Underwriters because INAC did not prove that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its claims for unearned premiums. Therefore, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s judgment granting the Underwriters’ motion for summary judgment against INAC. We also sever INAC’s claims against the Underwriters and remand these claims to the trial court for further proceedings. Because the trial court properly granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Insurance Alliance and Burris, we affirm the portion of the trial court’s judgment dismissing INAC’s claims against these parties.