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

This proceeding arose upon a request for hearing made by Wendy Meader to contest the pending nonrenewal of automobile insurance coverage provided by Concord General Mutual Insurance Company. On September 18, 2003, the insurer mailed a notice of nonrenewal effective November 4, 2003 policy number B268329, citing “two at fault accidents dated 4/21/03 and 2/4/03” 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 20, 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. Wendy Meader represented herself at the hearing.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

1. Concord General Mutual Insurance Company has insured Ms. Meader’s automobiles since 1994.
2. Wendy Meader has had the following accidents:

   2/4/03 Ms. Meader proceeded from a stop sign to make a left hand turn and collided with another vehicle. Concord paid $1,503.32 property damage to the other vehicle.

   4/21/03 Insured was straddling the middle of the road in attempt to speak with operator of other vehicle. When the two vehicles met, she applied her brakes and skidded in the sand and struck the other vehicle. Concord paid $3,669.20.

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 $1,000.

The statute also 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.

James Gardner, Personal Lines Underwriter for Concord, stated in his affidavit that Wendy Meader has been involved in two vehicle accidents each resulting in payment in excess of $1,000. He submitted copies of the loss notices giving descriptions of the losses and claim summaries indicating the amount of payment.

Wendy Meader testified that had she known the February accident was considered her fault, she would not have claimed the April accident in order to attempt to avoid nonrenewal. She stated that she felt the operator of the other vehicle involved in the April accident was speeding and was operating the vehicle without valid Maine registration plates. There was no indication that the other operator in the April accident was convicted of a violation contributing to the accident, and none of the other exceptions provided in the statute apply.

Ms. Meader stated that she had no offenses or losses prior to February and operates a motorcycle regularly with no losses.

It is noted that the policy contract allows the insurer to settle or defend, as it considers appropriate, any claim or suit asking for damages for which the insured is legally responsible. Based on the information available to them at the time of the claims, Concord chose to pay the damages incurred by the claimants.

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 General Mutual Insurance Company has established adequate grounds for policy nonrenewal.

ORDER AND NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS

The intended termination is hereby approved. Concord General Mutual Insurance Company is directed to continue coverage until February 5, 2004 at 12:01 a.m. to allow the policyholder 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 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