Moore & Jenkins v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.

Horney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented on this appeal is whether the London Guarantee & Accident Company (insurer) was still the compensation insurance carrier for Raymond H. Jenkins (employer) at the time of the injury of Earl B. Moore (claimant). The claimant, who was injured while working for the employer on May 10, 1962, filed a claim with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (Commission), and was awarded $40 per week as temporary total disability. Subsequently, the insurer sought a hearing to determine whether it was the insurer on the date of the accident under the standard workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability policy it had issued to the employer.

At the hearing, the Commission found that the policy afforded coverage to the employer until May 15, 1962. On appeal, the Circuit Court for Wicomico County reversed the finding and held that the policy had been cancelled prior to the date of the accident, and entered judgment in favor of the insurer for costs. The record discloses that a policy numbered US 52-40-78 was issued by the insurer to the employer for the period of one year from January 16, 1962. The premium thereon not having been promptly paid, the insurer, on March 7, 1962, sent the employer a notice that the policy would be cancelled as of March 19, 1962.

Ten days later the Commission received from the insurer a notice of cancellation effective May 5, 1962. Although the notice to the Commission contained the correct policy date, name of employer, location of employer’s business and name of the insuring company, it listed the number of the policy as US 52470 and did not describe the nature of the business of the employer. This notice, with an explanatory memo ⁴²⁸ randum attached, was returned to the insurer. A second corrected notice, dated March 29, 1962, as was the first notice, was sent to and was received by the Commission on April 16, 1962.

Although the corrected notice specified May 5, 1962, as the effective date of cancellation, as did the first notice, the Commission, allowing thirty days from the date of the receipt of the corrected notice, entered in their records May 15, 1962, as the effective date of cancellation of the policy. On the appeal by the claimant and employer to this Court, the questions presented are: (i) whether the notice of cancellation sent to the Commission was sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute; and (ii) whether the notice of cancellation sent to the employer was sufficient to meet such requirements. (i) The procedure which an insurer must follow in order to cancel compensation insurance under the law is set forth in Code (1957), Art. 101, § 19(e), and provides in pertinent part that: “No contract of insurance issued by a stock company or mutual association against liability arising under this [Workmen’s Compensation] article shall be can-celled within the time limited in such contract for its expiration until at least thirty days after notice of intention to cancel such contract, on a date specified in such notice, shall be filed in the office of the Commission and also served on the employer. Such notice shall be served on the employer by delivering it to him or by sending it by mail, by registered letter, addressed to the employer at his or its last known place of residence * * Where, as here, the procedures for cancelling workmen’s compensation insurance is prescribed by