In Holland v. Sterling Casualty Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1059, a bank financed the premiums for an automobile insurance policy to insure the Hollands. The bank would later claim it properly served notice of its intention to exercise its right of cancellation. Five days after the insurer cancelled the policy at the direction of the bank, Ms. Holland injured a pedestrian. The insurer rejected the claim of the pedestrian. The pedestrian sued the Hollands, who in turn sued the insurer for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of contract. The trial court found the bank had cancelled the policy prior to the accident and therefore there was no policy in effect that would support the Hollands' allegations; it denied a request for leave to amend. The Hollands appealed, challenging the trial court's interpretation of section 673 and its denial of leave to amend. They argued in part that the bank never mailed the five-day precancellation notice required by subdivision (c) of section 673. Upon review, the court referenced subdivision (i) of section 673, which provides that an insurer can rely upon the lender's written exercise of its right of cancellation and confirmation of the cancellation date to relieve it of certain duties related to the insurance contract. The court explained the import of the notice requirements as follows: "The precancellation notices to insurer and insured serve different functions. Notice to the insurer is for the benefit of the insurer so that the insurer does not pay out on a postcancellation loss. Obviously, notice to the insured is for the insured's benefit, so that it can cure its defaults. If the lender does not send the precancellation notice to the insured, it must be the lender who is responsible to the insured, not the insurer." ( Holland v. Sterling Casualty Ins. Co., supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 1064.) The Court interpreted section 673. The court confirmed that it was the lender, not the insurer, who must give proper notice under section 673 for cancellation to be effective when the insured transfers the right of cancellation to the lender and subsequently defaults. (Holland, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 1063.) "If the lender does not send the precancellation notice to the insured, it must be the lender who is responsible to the insured, not the insurer." (Id. at p. 1064.) Once the lender mails the cancellation notice, the insurer, in accord with section 673, subdivision (i), has no further obligation to send notice to the insured. (Ibid.)