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

This proceeding arose upon a request for hearing made by Patricia Locke to contest the pending nonrenewal of automobile insurance coverage provided by Vermont Accident Insurance Company. The company is a member of the Concord Group, and shall hereinafter be referred to as “Concord.” On August 21, 2003, the insurer mailed a notice of nonrenewal effective October 22, 2003, on policy number B139726, citing “Patricia’s losses of 2/27/01 and 12/6/02” as the grounds for nonrenewal. Pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2920, the insured's hearing request was timely.

A hearing in this matter was held on October 15, 2003, 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 the proof or evidence given by the insurer to support its reason for policy nonrenewal. Staff representing Concord submitted a sworn statement in lieu of appearance at the hearing, and also participated by telephone. Patricia Locke represented herself at the hearing.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following facts have been proven by a preponderance of evidence submitted:

1. Concord has insured Ms. Locke’s automobiles since October 22, 1988. The policy currently covers two vehicles.
2. On 2/27/01, Ms. Locke hit a deer, resulting in a claim payment of $2,550.12.
3. On 12/6/02, Ms. Locke hit another deer, resulting in a claim payment of $3,196.60.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW
Title 24-A M.R.S.A. §2916-A permits nonrenewal for specific accidents or convictions which occurred during the 36-month period preceding the yearly anniversary date of the policy. Subsection 2 provides the following requirements:

"2. Accidents. When a named insured or any other person who operates a motor vehicle insured under the policy is individually or are aggregately involved in 2 or more vehicle accidents while operating a motor vehicle insured under the policy, resulting in either personal injury or property damage in excess of the amount defined as a reportable accident under Title 29-A, section 2251, subsection 1." That amount currently is $1000.

Alison Jones, Personal Lines Underwriter for Concord, stated in her affidavit that the policyholder has had two vehicle accidents resulting in either personal injury or property damage in excess of $1,000 in the 36 months preceding the yearly anniversary date of the policy. She submitted loss documents to establish the details of the losses.

Ms. Locke testified that she did have two accidents, both involving deer, but that the accidents were completely non-fault. She stated that there was no way to avoid hitting the deer in either case, and that on both occasions she was driving safely and responsibly. She also argued that the policy insures two vehicles, and therefore the statute requires a third accident before an insurer can nonrenew.

The Superintendent of Insurance has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2920. Concord 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 Concord has established adequate grounds for policy nonrenewal.

Ms. Locke argued first that the accidents were not at fault, and that the Bureau’s automobile cancellation brochure implied that only at-fault accidents provide grounds for nonrenewal. The statute provides four exceptions, stating that an occurrence is not considered an accident when:

• the vehicle was struck from the rear;
• the vehicle was struck while parked;
• only the operator of the other vehicle was convicted of a crime, offense or violation contributing to the accident; or
• the insured or insurer was reimbursed by or on behalf of the person responsible for the accident, or has a judgment against that person.

Accidents in which the driver has struck a deer or other animal in the road do not fit into any of the exception categories. Ms. Locke also argued that three accidents are required for nonrenewal, as the policy insures two vehicles. 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2916-A(2) provides two methods for calculating the number of accidents permitting nonrenewal, based upon either the accidents of an individual driver on the policy or by aggregating the accidents of all drivers. She pointed to the section that states: “When more than one motor vehicle in a household is insured by the same insurer, the number of accidents that would permit nonrenewal must, for the aggregate, be increased by one for each additional motor vehicle insured.” As both accidents involve the same driver, the number of vehicles on the policy is not a factor. The aggregate language is not implicated.

INDEX OF RECORD:
Exhibit 1 – Affidavit of Alison Jones
Exhibit 2 – 2/27/01 Loss Documents
Exhibit 3 – 12/6/02 Loss Documents
Exhibit 4 – Postal Proof of Mailing and Nonrenewal Notice
Exhibit 5 – Copy of Policy

ORDER AND NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS
The intended nonrenewal is hereby approved. Vermont Accident Insurance Company is hereby directed to continue coverage until 12:01 a.m. on November 10, 2003, to allow the policyholder 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