the agency, see Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 3, § 801(b)(2) (defining a “contested case” as “a proceeding ... in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing”), in which the APA rulemaking procedures did not apply. See In re Petition of Telesystems Corp., 143 Vt. 504, 469 A.2d 1169, 1173 (1983) (assuming that rulemaking procedures do not apply to an adjudicative decision made within the context of a contested case). In this case, however, Zurich never submitted its policy forms to VDBI, and VDBI never had an opportunity to approve or disapprove them. Thus, because there has been no agency action with respect to the Zurich policies, this appeal does not involve a contested case. Cf. id. at 1172-73 (<HOLDING>). Instead, Maska asks us to treat VDBI’s
holding that the point on appeal and the objection in the trial court must be the same in order for it to be preserved for appeal holding that a policy statement in a public service board order was intended to apply solely to the case on appeal and thus did not constitute rulemaking holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy holding that the board did not abuse its discretion by dismissing an untimely appeal where the appellant failed to respond to a board order to show cause