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

This proceeding arose upon a request for hearing made by David & Melinda Wakefield of Portland, ME, to contest the pending cancellation of automobile insurance coverage provided by Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company. On November 8, 2002, the insurer mailed a notice of cancellation effective December 4, 2002 on policy number 48 PH 308349, citing "Justin Bishop’s current license suspension" as the grounds for cancellation. Pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. §§ 2915 and 2920, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company provided the insured with proper notice and the insured's hearing request was timely.

A hearing in this matter was held on December 11, 2002 with Connie Mayette sitting as designated hearing officer pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. §§ 210 and 2920. 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 cancellation. Staff representing Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company submitted a sworn affidavit in lieu of appearance at the hearing. David & Melinda Wakefield represented themselves at the hearing.

Title 24-A, M.R.S.A. § 2914 states that "no notice of cancellation shall be effective unless it is based on one or more" of the reasons described therein. Subsection 4 permits cancellation if, "the named insured or any operator who either resides in the same household or customarily operates an automobile insured under the policy has a driver's license suspended, other than a first or 2nd suspension under Title 29-A, section 2471, subsection 2 or section 2472, subsection 2, or a suspension under Title 28-A, section 2052, or revoked during the policy term or, if the policy is a renewal, during its term or the 180 days immediately preceding its effective date."

Karen Astiasaran, Senior Consultant/Consumer Affairs Department at Hartford, states in her affidavit that Justin Bishop is the insured’s son, and that he had an accident on April 1, 2002, while operating a vehicle insured under the policy. She further states that Mrs. Wakefield had subsequently notified them by telephone that he was moving from the household effective April 19, 2002, but provided no evidence. Ms. Astiasaran submitted Justin’s motor vehicle record, dated October 22, 2002, which reflects the same address as the insureds and lists several suspensions applied since April 2002:

1. 04/26/02 Suspension for blood alcohol content greater than .00 on 3/17/02
2. 04/26/02 Suspension for operating under the influence on 3/17/02
3. 05/17/02 Suspension for speeding on 3/17/02 (1st suspension under 29-A, 2472(2))
4. 05/29/02 Suspension for illegal transportation of liquor (28-A, 2052) (2nd under 29-A, 2472)
5. 05/29/02 Suspension for illegal transportation of liquor (28-A, 2052)
6. 06/06/01 Suspension for failure to pay a fine (speeding)
7. 06/01/01 Suspension for failure to pay a fine (failure to provide evidence of insurance)
8. 06/06/02 Suspension for failure to provide evidence of insurance
9. 06/06/02 Suspension for failure to file insurance “FFI REC REV”
10. 10/10/02 Suspension for failure to pay a fine (illegal transportation of liquor)
11. 10/10/02 Suspension for failure to pay a fine (operating under the influence)

The third, fourth and fifth suspensions listed are specifically exempted from providing grounds to cancel under 24-A, § 2914(4), but the remaining suspensions qualify as grounds.

Mrs. Wakefield testified that Justin had lived with them at the time he got his license in January 2002, but that he no longer lives with them. She stated that they had asked him to leave after the accident in April of 2002, as he was a bad influence on his younger siblings. She stated that they got rid of his vehicle and have not replaced it. She testified that he dropped out of school and has been "couch-surfing," shifting around from friend to friend. She was not able to provide any documentation that he was no longer in the household; she indicated she could give a phone number where he could be reached, but had no evidence of a different legal address.

The Superintendent of Insurance has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2920. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company bears the burden of proof for establishing that the statutory grounds for policy cancellation exist. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Superintendent hereby concludes that Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company has established adequate grounds for policy cancellation.

The evidence on the record indicates that Justin is a resident of the insureds’ household. No evidence was provided to document that he resides elsewhere. Although neither the policy effective date nor the expiration date was provided, in this case the suspension dates of April, June and October 2002 would fall within the statutory time requirements (during the current term or within 180 days of the last renewal) for any conceivable policy period.

INDEX OF RECORD:
Exhibit 1 – Affidavit of Karen Astiasaran
Exhibit 2 – Proof of Mailing
Exhibit 3 – Justin Bishop’s MVR

Order and Notice of Appeal Rights

The intended termination is hereby approved. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company is directed to continue coverage until February 15, 2003 at 12:01 a.m. to allow Mr. and Mrs. Wakefield an opportunity to obtain other coverage.

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