Archives: 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008

In RE:

This proceeding arose upon a request for hearing made by Marie Brizendine of Gardiner, ME, to contest the pending nonrenewal of homeowners insurance coverage provided to her by York Insurance Company of Maine. On October 8, 2002, the insurer mailed a notice of nonrenewal effective December 4, 2002 on policy number YMSP45443, citing as the grounds for nonrenewal “Conditions were discovered on the property that increase the likelihood of claims occurring. Those conditions include: broken windows which increase the exposure to weather, break-in and vandalism losses, exterior siding, framing and stairs are damaged increasing the exposure to weather and water related losses. The debris in the yard and the broken steps increase the exposure to liability losses as does the one set of steps made out of concrete blocks. Should a covered loss occur due to these increased hazards, our policy would have to respond”. Pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. §§ 3051 and 3054, York Insurance Company of Maine provided the insured with proper notice and the insured's hearing request was timely.

A hearing in this matter was held on November 12, 2002 with Connie Mayette sitting as designated hearing officer pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. §§ 210 and 3054. The purpose of the hearing was limited to establishing the existence of proof or evidence given by the insurer to support its reason for policy nonrenewal. Staff representing York Insurance Company of Maine appeared at the hearing. Marie Brizendine represented herself at the hearing, accompanied by Rodney Bickford.

Title 24-A, M.R.S.A. § 3051 states that the reason for nonrenewal must be a good faith reason rationally related to the insurability of the property, and 24-A, M.R.S.A. §3054 requires the insurer to establish the proof or evidence of its reason for nonrenewal.

Heather Rosewall, Personal Lines Senior Underwriter, testified that they had received photos from the insured in October indicating that some of the issues cited as the reason for nonrenewal had been done, but that the remaining condition of the siding increases their exposure to weather and water related losses. She submitted a copy of the inspection that first brought the concerns to the company’s attention [Exhibit 3], and the photos submitted by the agent in October [Exhibit 4].

Mrs. Brizendine testified that the porch steps and broken windows had been replaced. She also stated that the cement block steps had been removed from the deck, and the railing extended so there was no longer an opening there. She also stated that the bushes around the house were gone, and that they had removed a tree that was too close. She stated that it is too late in the season to paint, but indicated an intent to do so in the spring. It was apparent from the photos that the majority of the debris had been removed.

Ms. Rosewall indicated that the one remaining issue was the condition of the siding, and concern about any area that is unpainted. It is noted that the reason for nonrenewal did not mention lack of paint or peeling paint, but specifically referenced “exterior siding, framing and stairs are damaged.” When asked for clarification about the cited “damage,” Ms. Rosewall indicated that there appeared to be dry rot in a number of areas.

Rodney Bickford, a handyman for the policyholder, testified that all of the siding is solid with no dry rot in the corner area shown in photo 4 [Exhibit 4]. He stated that water had splashed up from the ground in that area, and that previously leaves had been piled up against the siding. He stated the boards just need scraping and painting. Ms. Rosewall pointed out another area in photo 3 at the edge of the porch roof where she felt there appeared to be dry rot. Mr. Bickford stated that he had not seen any dry rot in that area, although he admitted that he had not gone up on a ladder to poke it with a knife to be sure. Ms. Rosewall also admitted that the company’s inspector had also likely just visually inspected from the ground.

The Superintendent of Insurance has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 3054. York Insurance Company of Maine bears the burden of proof for establishing that the statutory grounds for policy nonrenewal exist. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Superintendent hereby concludes that York Insurance Company of Maine has not established adequate grounds for policy nonrenewal.

The company’s testimony indicated that the only remaining issue was the condition of the siding. No evidence was submitted to support that there was any damage to the siding as stated in the notice. It was evident that areas do need scraping and painting, but that issue was not listed as a reason for nonrenewal, and condition of paint alone would not constitute a good faith reason rationally related to the insurability of the property.

INDEX OF RECORD:
Exhibit 1 – Copy of Policy
Exhibit 2 – Proof of Mailing
Exhibit 3 – MSB Inspection
Exhibit 4 – Agency Photos

Order and Notice of Appeal Rights

The intended nonrenewal is not approved. York Insurance Company of Maine is directed to renew policy #YMSP45443 on the same terms as the expiring policy.

This Decision and Order is a final agency action within the meaning of the Maine Administrative Procedure Act. It is appealable to the Superior Court in the manner provided in Title 24-A M.R.S.A. § 236 and M.R. Civ. P. 80C. Any party to the hearing may initiate an appeal within 30 days after receipt of this notice. Any nonparty whose interests are substantially and directly affected may initiate an appeal within 40 days of the effective date of this Decision and Order.

Return to Cancellation / Nonrenewal Hearing Decisions