Skip Maine state header navigation
![]() |
| Home | Contact Us | Careers | Calendar |
|
Maine.gov
> PFR Home
> Insurance Regulation
> Cancellation Hearing Index
> Cancellation / Nonrenewal Docket No. INS 03-13164 Decision
Archives: 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008
In RE:
This proceeding arose upon a request for hearing made by Tracey Dore to contest the pending nonrenewal of automobile insurance coverage provided by Casco Indemnity Company. On February 21, 2003, the insurer mailed a notice of nonrenewal effective April 23, 2003 on policy number AU 1031957, citing “failure to comply with policy conditions as the grounds for nonrenewal.” Pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. §§ 2917 and 2920, Casco Indemnity Company provided the insured with proper notice and the insured's hearing request was timely. A hearing in this matter was held on July 15, 2003 with Mary Ellen Albert 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 the proof or evidence given by the insurer to support its reason for policy nonrenewal. Staff representing Casco Indemnity Company appeared at the hearing. Tracey Dore neither appeared nor submitted a sworn statement for the hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW Lori Hunter, Assistant Manager for Casco Indemnity, testified that Tracey Dore had submitted a claim with Patrons Oxford Insurance Company and received payment in the amount of $1,318.90 on September 23, 2002 for repairs sustained in an accident with a Patrons insured on September 6, 2002. Ms. Hunter testified that Ms. Dore also collected from her own carrier in the amount of $1,254.45 on September 17, 2002 for the same loss. Ms. Hunter stated that it was when Casco attempted subrogation with Patrons to collect their pay out that they discovered Ms. Dore had also collected payment for her repairs from them. On October 22, 2002 Jennifer Anderson of Casco’s accounting department sent a letter to Ms. Dore asking for return of the $1,254.45 paid out by Casco. After no response, a second letter was sent to Ms. Dore on November 25, 2002 indicating that Casco was waiting for the return of the money. Ms. Anderson also noted in that letter that several messages had been left for Ms. Dore by Ms. Anderson and Ms. Dore had returned her calls a couple of times. Ms. Dore left messages indicating that she felt there might be some additional damage and she was planning on using the money from Casco to take care of those additional damages. Ms. Anderson also informed Ms. Dore that Patrons needed to be aware of any additional damages and Patrons would be responsible for damages related to the loss of September 6, 2002. Again, Ms. Dore was reminded that under the terms of her contract, she could only collect from one carrier for any given loss. At this time, Casco Indemnity’s subrogation department engaged the services of Susan J. Szwed, Esq. to attempt to recover the money paid out to Ms. Dore. On April 11, 2003, Ms. Szwed sent a letter to Jennifer Anderson indicating that Ms. Dore did not respond to her letter of demand. Ms. Anderson stated that when she contacted her by telephone, Ms. Dore indicated she would sending a check out right away to Casco. On April 16, 2003, Ms. Szwed followed up with a letter to Ms. Anderson informing her that payment had been received from Ms. Dore. No testimony was offered by Ms. Dore. The Superintendent of Insurance has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2920. Casco Indemnity Company 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 Casco Indemnity Company has established adequate grounds for policy nonrenewal. In the policy, at Part F-“General Provisions of the Policy,” under Our Right To Recover Payment” (B) states: “If we make a payment under this policy and the person to or for whom payment is made recovers damages from another, that person shall: (2) Reimburse us to the extent of our payment.” The insured did not comply with this term of the policy, and did not remit such reimbursement, in spite of the company’s demands, until demand from the company’s retained attorney. INDEX OF RECORD: ORDER AND NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS The intended nonrenewal is hereby approved. Casco Indemnity Company is directed to continue coverage until September 19, 2003 at 12:01 a.m. to allow the policyholder time 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 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.
Last Updated: July 16, 2008 |
| Copyright © 2006 All rights reserved. |