Renewal Notices Sent Electronically Are Legal, Approved by the State and Effective<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\nPost 5000<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\nSee the full video at https:\/\/rumble.com\/v6mq8ur-electronic-notice-of-renewal-sufficient.htm<\/a>l and at https:\/\/youtu.be\/_h7cA0xsmjg<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/zalma.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/renewal.png?resize=640%2C360\")
Washington state law allows insurers to deliver insurance notices and documents electronically if the party has affirmatively consented to that method of delivery and has not withdrawn the consent. The Plaintiffs argued that the terms and conditions statement was not \u201cconspicuous\u201d because it was hidden behind a hyperlink included in a single line of small text. The court found that the statement was sufficiently conspicuous as it was bolded and set off from the surrounding text in bright blue text.<\/p>\n
In\u00a0James Hughes et al. v. American Strategic Insurance Corp et al.,<\/em> No. 3:24-cv-05114-DGE, United States District Court (February 14, 2025) the USDC resolved the dispute.<\/p>\nThe court\u2019s reasoning focused on two main points:<\/p>\n
\n- whether the Plaintiffs\u2019 consented to receive electronic notices and<\/li>\n
- whether the notice provided by ASI satisfied Washington law.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Consent to Receive Electronic Notice<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\nThe court found that the terms and conditions statement was clear in informing the Plaintiffs that they were consenting to receive insurance policy documents electronically.<\/p>\n
Whether the Notice Satisfied Washington Law<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\nWashington law requires insurers to renew any insurance policy unless they have communicated their willingness to renew in writing to the named insured at least twenty days prior to its expiration date and included a statement of the amount of the premium required to be paid by the insured to renew the policy. The USDC found that ASI\u2019s renewal notice, which was emailed to the Plaintiffs on July 15, 2022, complied with these requirements because the notice came 61 days before the renewal deadline and stated the amount required to be paid to maintain the policy.<\/p>\n
The USDC noted that although ASI\u2019s system of attaching renewal notices in lengthy packets was not ideal, it did not violate the law. The court also noted that insureds in Washington have an affirmative duty to read their policy and be on notice of its terms and conditions.<\/p>\n
The Renewal Premium Notice<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\nA \u201cRenewal Premium Notice\u201d was contained in the packet attached to the email. In relevant part, the Notice stated: \u201cTo accept this renewal offer and maintain your coverage, please pay the minimum amount due shown below.\u201d\u00a0 The Notice listed \u201ctotal amount due\u201d as $1,471.00 and listed September 14, 2020, as the \u201cdue date.\u201d<\/p>\n
Plaintiffs did not pay the renewal by September 14, 2022, and the policy lapsed.<\/p>\n
Plaintiffs\u2019 house was destroyed by a fire on August 11, 2023 almost a year after the due date with no attempt made by Mr. Hughes to pay the premium.<\/p>\n
When Mr. Hughes called to report the claim on August 12, 2023, he was informed that the policy had lapsed. Plaintiffs alleged that they incurred $750,000 in damages for the loss.<\/p>\n
DISCUSSION<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\nThe USDC noted that the Plaintiffs were actually aware that they were receiving renewal notices by email. Indeed, the terms and conditions statement uses the words \u201cinsurance policy documents\u201d three times, making it clear that the \u201ctypes of notices and documents\u201d contemplated are those that pertain to the signor\u2019s insurance policy.<\/p>\n
Mr. Hughes confirmed receipt of the July 15, 2022, email containing the renewal packet. The \u201cRenewal Premium Notice\u201d in the packet instructed Plaintiffs to pay the minimum amount due to maintain their coverage and listed \u201ctotal amount due\u201d as $1,471.00. Since the notice came in 61 days before the renewal deadline and stated the amount required to be paid in order to maintain the policy it complied with Washington law.<\/p>\n
Plaintiffs\u2019 policy validly lapsed when they did not make the renewal payment.<\/p>\n
Mr. Hughes agreed to accept all communications from ASI electronically and admitted that he received the communication stating when, and how much, he needed to pay to renew his policy. He did not pay the premium and the policy lapsed. ASI even wrote to Hughes about the lapse and he did nothing to renew the policy or find a new policy. I would feel for the man if he did not receive the notice but he admitted he received it and claimed that the premium requirement was hidden from his view even though it was made bold and in blue, ASI wrote to him to explain the lapse and so did his agent.. He had no one to blame for the loss except himself.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/zalma.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/BZTHEA.png?resize=300%2C282\")
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.<\/p>\n
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.<\/p>\n
Subscribe to my substack at https:\/\/barryzalma.substack.com\/subscribe<\/a><\/p>\nGo to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https:\/\/www.newsbreak.com\/@c\/1653419?s=01;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https:\/\/rumble.com\/account\/content?type=all;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg<\/a><\/p>\nGo to the Insurance Claims Library \u2013 https:\/\/lnkd.in\/gwEYk<\/a><\/p>\n\nLike this:<\/h3>\n
See the full video at https:\/\/rumble.com\/v6mq8ur-electronic-notice-of-renewal-sufficient.htm<\/a>l and at https:\/\/youtu.be\/_h7cA0xsmjg<\/a><\/p>\n In\u00a0James Hughes et al. v. American Strategic Insurance Corp et al.,<\/em> No. 3:24-cv-05114-DGE, United States District Court (February 14, 2025) the USDC resolved the dispute.<\/p>\n The court\u2019s reasoning focused on two main points:<\/p>\n The court found that the terms and conditions statement was clear in informing the Plaintiffs that they were consenting to receive insurance policy documents electronically.<\/p>\n Washington law requires insurers to renew any insurance policy unless they have communicated their willingness to renew in writing to the named insured at least twenty days prior to its expiration date and included a statement of the amount of the premium required to be paid by the insured to renew the policy. The USDC found that ASI\u2019s renewal notice, which was emailed to the Plaintiffs on July 15, 2022, complied with these requirements because the notice came 61 days before the renewal deadline and stated the amount required to be paid to maintain the policy.<\/p>\n The USDC noted that although ASI\u2019s system of attaching renewal notices in lengthy packets was not ideal, it did not violate the law. The court also noted that insureds in Washington have an affirmative duty to read their policy and be on notice of its terms and conditions.<\/p>\n A \u201cRenewal Premium Notice\u201d was contained in the packet attached to the email. In relevant part, the Notice stated: \u201cTo accept this renewal offer and maintain your coverage, please pay the minimum amount due shown below.\u201d\u00a0 The Notice listed \u201ctotal amount due\u201d as $1,471.00 and listed September 14, 2020, as the \u201cdue date.\u201d<\/p>\n Plaintiffs did not pay the renewal by September 14, 2022, and the policy lapsed.<\/p>\n Plaintiffs\u2019 house was destroyed by a fire on August 11, 2023 almost a year after the due date with no attempt made by Mr. Hughes to pay the premium.<\/p>\n When Mr. Hughes called to report the claim on August 12, 2023, he was informed that the policy had lapsed. Plaintiffs alleged that they incurred $750,000 in damages for the loss.<\/p>\n The USDC noted that the Plaintiffs were actually aware that they were receiving renewal notices by email. Indeed, the terms and conditions statement uses the words \u201cinsurance policy documents\u201d three times, making it clear that the \u201ctypes of notices and documents\u201d contemplated are those that pertain to the signor\u2019s insurance policy.<\/p>\n Mr. Hughes confirmed receipt of the July 15, 2022, email containing the renewal packet. The \u201cRenewal Premium Notice\u201d in the packet instructed Plaintiffs to pay the minimum amount due to maintain their coverage and listed \u201ctotal amount due\u201d as $1,471.00. Since the notice came in 61 days before the renewal deadline and stated the amount required to be paid in order to maintain the policy it complied with Washington law.<\/p>\n Plaintiffs\u2019 policy validly lapsed when they did not make the renewal payment.<\/p>\n Mr. Hughes agreed to accept all communications from ASI electronically and admitted that he received the communication stating when, and how much, he needed to pay to renew his policy. He did not pay the premium and the policy lapsed. ASI even wrote to Hughes about the lapse and he did nothing to renew the policy or find a new policy. I would feel for the man if he did not receive the notice but he admitted he received it and claimed that the premium requirement was hidden from his view even though it was made bold and in blue, ASI wrote to him to explain the lapse and so did his agent.. He had no one to blame for the loss except himself.<\/p>\n Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.<\/p>\n Subscribe to my substack at https:\/\/barryzalma.substack.com\/subscribe<\/a><\/p>\n Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https:\/\/www.newsbreak.com\/@c\/1653419?s=01;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https:\/\/rumble.com\/account\/content?type=all;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg<\/a><\/p>\n Go to the Insurance Claims Library \u2013 https:\/\/lnkd.in\/gwEYk<\/a><\/p>\nWashington state law allows insurers to deliver insurance notices and documents electronically if the party has affirmatively consented to that method of delivery and has not withdrawn the consent. The Plaintiffs argued that the terms and conditions statement was not \u201cconspicuous\u201d because it was hidden behind a hyperlink included in a single line of small text. The court found that the statement was sufficiently conspicuous as it was bolded and set off from the surrounding text in bright blue text.<\/p>\n\n
Consent to Receive Electronic Notice<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n
Whether the Notice Satisfied Washington Law<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n
The Renewal Premium Notice<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n
DISCUSSION<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.<\/p>\nLike this:<\/h3>\n