## Facts

- Victoria Baker held a homeowner’s policy issued by St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, effective through November 15, 1985, payable in installments.
- The final installment premium was due July 28, 1985; St. Paul did not receive the payment.
- Baker testified she wrote the premium check on July 15, 1985, placed it in a stamped, preaddressed envelope, and deposited it in a mail chute at her workplace; she had no receipt or corroborating proof of mailing and did not track the check through bank records.
- On August 9, 1985, St. Paul mailed a cancellation notice stating the policy would cancel on September 1, 1985, unless the overdue premium was received by that date; copies were also mailed to Baker’s mortgagee and insurance agent.
- St. Paul produced a certificate of mailing; the mortgagee and agent received the notice, while Baker could not recall receiving it.
- Baker’s home sustained substantial fire damage in late September 1985.
- St. Paul denied the claim, asserting the policy was cancelled for nonpayment before the loss.

## Issues

1. Whether Baker’s testimony that she mailed the premium before the due date was sufficient to submit timely payment and continued coverage to the jury, defeating summary judgment and directed verdict.
2. Whether cancellation for nonpayment was effective based on proof that the insurer mailed the cancellation notice, regardless of the insured’s alleged nonreceipt.
3. Whether attorney’s fees awarded to Baker after obtaining judgment were proper under Nebraska law.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Baker.
- The court held Baker’s direct testimony of mailing was sufficient evidence to create a jury question on timely payment and coverage, so denial of summary judgment and directed verdict was proper.
- The court accepted that the insurer proved mailing of the cancellation notice; actual receipt by Baker was not required under the policy’s “by mailing” provision.
- The court upheld the attorney’s fee award because Baker recovered judgment on the coverage claim and statutory prerequisites were satisfied.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment and directed verdict, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; the motion is granted only when reasonable minds can reach but one conclusion.
- Appellate review does not reweigh evidence or decide witness credibility; it asks only whether sufficient evidence supports the verdict.
- An insured’s direct testimony that she mailed a premium payment, even if uncorroborated and disputed by an insurer’s claim of nonreceipt, can be sufficient for a factfinder to determine mailing and timely payment.
- When a policy authorizes cancellation by mailing notice, proof of proper mailing to the insured’s address satisfies the notice requirement; actual receipt is unnecessary unless required by policy or statute.
- Where statutory conditions are met, an insured who obtains judgment against an insurer on a wrongfully denied claim may recover attorney’s fees.

## Conclusion

Because Baker’s testimony permitted a reasonable jury to find she timely mailed the premium, coverage could remain in force notwithstanding the insurer’s later mailed cancellation notice for nonpayment; the verdict and attorney’s fees were therefore affirmed.


Baker v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 240 Neb. 14, 480 N.W.2d 192 (Neb. 1992)