of insurance. That clause specifically states that the defendant is obligated to notify plaintiff of a “cancellation” of the policy. Cancellation is very different than expiration of the policy. Under the Virginia statutes, defendant is only obligated to mail an insured an offer to renew unless defendant has decided not to renew the policy. Defendant extended to insured an offer to renew. Insured did not accept and, therefore, a new contract of insurance was not formed. There is no language in the loss payable clause that requires defendant to notify plaintiff of insured’s failure to renew the policy. The ten-day notice provision governs only cancellation, which is the termination of coverage during the policy period. See Yancey v. Colonial Ins. Co. of California, 51 Va. Cir. 31 (1999) (<HOLDING>). That provision does not apply in this case
holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage holding named driver exclusion eliminating liability coverage as well as um coverage did not contravene um statute because statute required um coverage only if the claimant otherwise qualifies for liability coverage under the policy holding that no constitutional violation may occur if a procedurally proper nameclearing hearing is provided holding that cancellation may only occur while coverage is still in effect