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

Findings and Decision

This proceeding arose upon a request for hearing made by Elizabeth Eddy to contest the pending nonrenewal of automobile insurance coverage provided by Concord General Mutual Insurance Company. On September 15, 2003, the insurer mailed a notice of nonrenewal effective November 17, 2003 on policy number B621650 18 1, citing “Elizabeth’s license under suspension for the 2-13-03 conviction of OUI” 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 November 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 Concord General Mutual Insurance Company submitted a sworn statement in lieu of appearing at the hearing. Elizabeth Eddy represented herself at the hearing.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

1. Concord has provided Elizabeth Eddy’s automobile insurance for approximately three years. The current policy term is 11/17/02 to 11/17/03.
2. Elizabeth Eddy has a 2/13/03 conviction of operating under the influence of liquor with the violation date of 9/12/2000. Her license was suspended on 2/13/2003 and restored on 4/14/2003.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

James Gardner, Personal Lines Underwriter for the Concord Group , stated in his sworn affidavit that an updated motor vehicle record was obtained as part of Concord’s routine renewal process. That record revealed that Elizabeth Eddy was convicted of Operating Under the Influence of Liquor on February 13, 2003 and her license was suspended at that time.

Ms. Eddy testified that she felt the company should go by the violation date of 2000, which would place the date outside the nonrenewal guidelines, instead of the conviction date. She testified it was not through any fault of her own that the legal system took so long to process the conviction. She also testified that she has had an excellent driving record prior to and since her violation.

Title 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2916-A(1)(A) permits nonrenewal based upon a conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated or impaired by the consumption of alcohol or drugs. if the conviction occurred during the 36-month period preceding the yearly anniversary date of the policy. The section also allows nonrenewal based upon a reason permitting cancellation under § 2914. Title 24-A M.R.S.A. 2914(4) permits cancellation if the named insured’s driver’s license is suspended or revoked during the policy term.

Concord’s action is permitted under either section of the Maine Automobile Insurance Cancellation Control Act. The license suspension of 2/13/03 occurred during the policy term, and the OUI conviction occurred during the 36-month period preceding the yearly anniversary date of the policy. Even if the specific nonrenewal statute was triggered by the violation date rather than the conviction date, as Ms. Eddy argued it should be, the date of the license suspension would provide grounds for cancellation, and therefore nonrenewal as well.

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

INDEX OF RECORD:

ORDER AND NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS

The intended nonrenewal is hereby approved. Concord General Mutual Insurance Company is directed to continue coverage until February 4, 2004 at 12:01 a.m. to allow the insured the opportunity to seek 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