In reversing a finding that a motor vehicle accident is still active and without definite prospect of stabilization, can the insurer terminate its liability to the insured while the policy is active?

In reversing, the Snapp court made reference to a specific finding that the " 'movement is still active and is without definite prospect of stabilization.' " (Snapp v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., supra, 206 Cal.App.2d at p. 831, 24 Cal.Rptr. 44.) The court continued: "To permit the insurer to terminate its liability while the fortuitous peril which materialized during the term of the policy was still active would not be in accord either with applicable precedents or with the common understanding of the nature and purpose of insurance; it would allow an injustice to be worked upon the insured by defeating the very substance of the protection for which his premiums were paid. [p] Once the contingent event insured against has occurred during the period covered, the liability of the carrier becomes contractual rather than potential only, and the sole issue remaining is the extent of its obligation, and it is immaterial that this may not be fully ascertained at the end of the policy period." (Id. at pp. 831-832, 24 Cal.Rptr. 44, italics in original.)