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

This proceeding arose upon a request for hearing made by Roberta Manter to contest the pending nonrenewal of automobile insurance coverage provided by North East Insurance Company (the “Company.”) On June 4, 2004, the Company mailed a notice of nonrenewal effective July 10, 2004, on policy number 02180001062 citing “Elizabeth has two at fault accidents 2/10/04 and 2/21/04. Accidents not reported to company timely” as the grounds for nonrenwal. Pursuant to Title 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2920, the Mrs. Manter’s hearing request was timely.

A hearing in this matter was held on July 14, 2004, pursuant to Title 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2920 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 proof or evidence given by the Company to support its reason for policy nonrenewal. Ethyl Potvin, Personal Lines Manager, represented the Company at the hearing. David and Roberta Manter (the “Insureds”) represented themselves at the hearing and also submitted a sworn statement for Elizabeth Manter (the “Daughter.”)

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

1. The Company has provided coverage for the Insureds’ vehicles since 1991.
2. On February 10, 2004, the Daughter rear-ended the vehicle in front of her. There was no damage to either vehicle. The other driver indicated at the accident scene that he was fine, but he later submitted a claim for injury.
3. On February 21, 2004, Elizabeth drove off the road, through a guardrail, down an embankment and into the Androscoggin River.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

Title 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2916-A (2) permits nonrenewal “[w]hen 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” during the 36-month period preceding the yearly anniversary date of the policy. The amount provided by 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2251(1) is $1,000. A policy also may be nonrenewed due to a violation of the terms or conditions of the policy. See §§ 2916-A, 2914(3).

Ethyl Potvin testified that the Daughter, who is an insured under the policy, has been involved in two accidents that meet the threshold allowed by statute. She testified that the accident of February 10, 2004, was not reported in a timely manner to the Company. She stated that the operator of the vehicle that the Daughter rear-ended claimed injury. She stated there was no known dollar amount of the damages. Ms. Potvin testified that on February 21, 2004, the Daughter was involved in a second accident when she slid off the road, through a fence, down an embankment and ended up in the water. She testified that the vehicle was possibly totaled. She stated that no damages were paid to repair the vehicle but the Company will have to pay for the guardrail that the Daughter hit. She stated the Company was billed $3,000 but due to prior damage on the guardrail, the Company would not be paying the entire amount. She indicated the Company may pay $1,400 of the $3,000 billed.

Mr. Manter testified at length that the ABS brake system was responsible for the accident on February 10, 2004, and there was nothing the Daughter could have done to avoid the accident. The Daughter testified in her sworn statement that at the time of accident, she spoke with the other driver who stated he had no damage to his vehicle and he was fine. She further testified that the accident on February 21, 2004, occurred on her way home from work. She noted that it was snowing and when she attempted to stop, she hit the guardrail and went down the embankment. The Company paid no money for the February 21, 2004, accident as Mr. Manter fixed the vehicle and Elizabeth did not require medical attention. Mr. Manter argued that the guardrail had been hit several times prior and was already damaged.

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. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Superintendent hereby concludes that the Company has not established adequate grounds for policy nonrenewal.

The Maine Automobile Insurance Cancellation Control Act permits an insurer to nonrenew when two or more accidents resulting in either bodily injury or property damage exceeding $1,000 have occurred during the 36-month period before the anniversary date of the policy. The Company has demonstrated that the two accidents occurred within that time frame. The question is whether both accidents are qualifying accidents under § 2916-A (2).

The first accident which occurred on February 10, 2004, resulted in bodily injury and therefore, it is an accident under § 2916-A (2). With respect to the February 21, 2004 accident, however, the Company did not provide a dollar amount for damage to the vehicle in question. Although the Company maintained that it received a bill for $3,000 for damage to the guardrail, Ms. Potvin indicated that the Company may pay $1,400 towards that bill. However, insufficient evidence has been presented to demonstrate that $1,400 has been determined by the Company to be a correct assessment of the damage caused by the accident or that Company personnel have even received approval to dispense $1,400 for the repair. The actual amount paid may be less. Accordingly, the Company has not established that the property damage caused by the February 21, 2004, accident exceeded $1,000, and it has not demonstrated that two or more qualifying accidents have occurred during the 36 months prior to the anniversary date of the policy as required for nonrenewal of the policy under § 2916-A(2).

Lastly, although the Company asserts that the February 10, 2004, accident was not reported in a timely manner, it failed to demonstrate that the policy required a more prompt response from the Insured. Accordingly, I conclude that the Company has not established that the Insureds’ failure to timely report the February 10, 2004, accident may provide grounds for nonrenewal of this policy.

INDEX OF RECORD:
Company Exhibit 1 – Nonrenewal notice
Company Exhibit 2 – Proof of mailing
Company Exhibit 3 – Motor Vehicle Report for Insureds
Company Exhibit 4 – E-mail from claims adjuster regarding losses
Company Exhibit 5 - 2/21/04 Loss notice
Company Exhibit 6 – Motor Vehicle Accident Report
Company Exhibit 7 – Driver’s report of accident
Company Exhibit 8 – Bodily injury report for Craig Hemmingway
Company Exhibit 9 – Injury evaluation
Company Exhibit 10- 2/10/04 Loss notice

Insured Exhibit 1 – Request for hearing
Insured Exhibit 2 – Statement of Elizabeth Manter
Insured Exhibit 3- Website information regarding ABS Brake Systems

ORDER AND NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS

The intended nonrenewal is not approved. North East Insurance Company is directed to renew policy #02180001062 on the same terms as the expiring policy. If a valid notice of cancellation of the policy is effected in accordance with applicable law, the renewal of coverage is negated. If a cancellation has taken effect, the policy will terminate on the date stated in the cancellation notice.

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 date of this Decision and Order.

Dated September 10, 2004                                          Alessandro A. Iuppa
                                                                                    Superintendent of Insurance

                                                                                    ____________________________________
                                                                                    by Mary Ellen Albert
                                                                                    Designated Hearing Officer

Return to Cancellation / Nonrenewal Hearing Decisions