Statutory Procedures Are to be Followed, or Else...
When I was in law school I clerked for a managing attorney who made his clerks – to our occasional frustration -- obey every procedural rule to the letter. A case, Cornhusker Casualty Ins. v. Kachman,
handed down by the Washington Supreme Court last month shows that there is merit to strict compliance, even if you think that taking the rule one step further seems more effective.
The question presented by the case was whether a commercial auto insurance policy was effectively cancelled. The Washington statute required actual delivery or mailing to the insured at its last known address. Here, the insurer sent the notice of cancellation by certified mail. The letter was not received. The cancellation was not effective – because the statute uses the term “mailed” not “certified mail”.
One might argue that certified mail has a better chance of being received than first class mail. (And, give the sender the comfort of a signed receipt in the file.) But, the court finds that certified mail places a duty on the recipient to either be at home or go to the post office, and is more relevant to the actual delivery option that was set forth in the statute. The bottom line is that the statute required mailing or receipt, neither one was present, and the policy was not effectively cancelled.
Since 2006 the statute has required the insurer to “deliver or mail,” and the court does not state if the change would affect its reasoning. However, the case illustrates the fact that statutory procedures are to be followed; substituting your idea of an improvement is not a great idea.
