of Assumption, Mr. Cleveland’s premiums were sent to Central United. However, the question of what sort of “assent” on the part of a policyholder is required to achieve a novation which relieves the original insurer of liability on the insurance contract has not been addressed by either the Texas or Mississippi courts which is to say, there is nothing in the jurisprudence of either state that provides an answer to the question whether Mr. Cleveland’s actions could be held or found to constitute the requisite assent to relieve Commonwealth of any potential liability on the insurance contract. Some courts have indeed held that a policyholder’s payment of premiums to the reinsurer is sufficient. See, e.g., Epland v. Meade Ins. Agency Assocs., Inc., 564 N.W.2d 203, 207 (Minn. 1997) (<HOLDING>); State Dept. of Public Welfare v. Central
holding that an immaterial breach does not deprive the insurer of the benefit of the bargain and thus cannot relieve the insurer of the contractual coverage obligation holding that the insurer is allowed to continue its investigation beyond the time that payment is due under the policy if reasonably necessary holding as a matter of law that insureds consented to assumption agreement by payment of premiums to reinsurer thus releasing original insurer from its obligation under the policy holding that payment under settlement agreement between insurer and insureds concerning disputed premium claims was a compromise that did not violate antirebate statute holding insureds firstoccurring immaterial breach of them insurance policy did not excuse insurer from its obligation to perform under the contract