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

This proceeding arose upon a request for hearing made by Carol Ridlon (hereinafter the “Insured”) to contest the pending nonrenewal of automobile insurance coverage provided by Teachers Insurance Company (hereinafter the “Company.”) On December 1, 2003, the Company mailed a notice of nonrenewal effective January 31, 2004, on policy number 18-67255570, citing “motor vehicle report for Wesley with speeds on 7/31/2000, 3/1/2001, 12/26/2001, 5/23/2002 and accident on 1/31/2002” 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 pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2920 on January 21, 2004, with Mary Ellen Albert sitting as designated hearing officer. See 24-A M.R.S.A. § 210. The purpose of the hearing was limited to establishing the existence of the proof or evidence given by the Company to support its reason for policy nonrenewal. Staff representing the Company submitted a sworn statement in lieu of appearing at the hearing. The Insured also submitted a sworn statement in lieu of appearing at the hearing.

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

1. The Company has insured the Insured’s vehicles since 1993.
2. Wesley Ridlon, the Insured’s son, was convicted of speeding on 7/31/2000, 3/1/2001, 12/26/2001 and 5/23/2002. He further was involved in an accident on 1/31/2002.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

Title 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2916-A permits nonrenewal of an automobile insurance policy when a named insured or any operator who either resides in the same household or customarily operates an automobile insured under the policy has one or more of the convictions specified in subsection 1 during the 36-months immediately preceding the yearly anniversary date of the policy. Subsection 1, Paragraph D of this section permits nonrenewal for the conviction of operating a motor vehicle in excess of the speed limit on three or more occasions.

Dawn Fry, Policyholder Compliance Services Administrator for the Horace Mann Companies, submitted an affidavit on behalf of the Company. She provided a copy of Wesley’s motor vehicle report. This report shows three speeding convictions within the 36 months prior to the policy’s expiration date.

The Insured testified in her affidavit that the Company has unsuccessfully attempted to nonrenew her policies for well over a year and that the reasons stated for nonrenewal are the same. She argued that her son’s speeding ticket of March 1, 2001, would come off of his record soon and the January 2002 accident was not his fault according to the police report. The Insured further maintained that she has an excellent driving record and that she knows several others whose children have driving records far worse than her son’s and the Company has never cancelled those individuals’ policies.

The Superintendent of Insurance has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2920. The Company bears the burden of proof for establishing that the statutory grounds for policy nonrenewal exist. The Insured’s policies were reinstated in the past because the Company had not complied with all requirements of the Cancellation Control Act. The circumstances that led to the prior reinstatements are not factors in this case. In the present matter, the evidence indicates that Wesley is listed as a driver on the Insured’s policy and is a resident of the household. Wesley’s convictions provide the Company with legal grounds for nonrewal. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Superintendent hereby concludes that Teachers Insurance Company has established adequate grounds for policy nonrenewal.

ORDER AND NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS

The intended nonrenewal is hereby approved. Teachers Insurance Company is directed to continue coverage until May 4, 2004 to allow Ms. Ridlon 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.

Dated April 16, 2004                                                   Alessandro A. Iuppa
                                                                                    Superintendent of Insurance

                                                                                    ____________________________________
                                                                                    By Mary Ellen Albert
                                                                                    Designated Hearing Officer

Return to Cancellation / Nonrenewal Hearing Decisions