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

This proceeding arose upon a request for hearing made by Scott Mills (the “Insured”) to contest the pending nonrenewal of automobile insurance coverage provided by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (the “Company.”) On July 6, 2004, the Company mailed a notice of nonrenewal effective August 12, 2004, on policy number 13 7471-B12-19A, citing “claims 05/17/03 negligent accident - Scott Mills, 05/08/03 negligent accident - Scott Mills” 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 August 19, 2004, with Connie Mayette 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. Glenn Oliphant, Underwriting Supervisor for the Company, submitted a sworn statement on behalf of the Company in lieu of appearance at the hearing. The Insured represented himself at the hearing, accompanied by his attorney, Leonard Sharon, Esquire.

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

1. The Company has insured the Insured’s vehicle since August 12, 1996. The subject policy covers one vehicle and expires on August 12, 2004.
2. On May 8, 2003, the Insured was struck from behind after the vehicle in front of him suddenly stopped, requiring him to also stop. The Company paid $2,500 under bodily injury liability, $368 under property damage liability, and $2,139 under collision after application of the $1000 deductible.
3. On May 17, 2003, the Insured drove off the road and into a ditch. The Company paid $2,032 under collision after application of the $1,000 deductible.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

Title 24-A, M.R.S.A. §2916-A 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. Section 2916-A(2) further identifies four circumstances which are not considered accidents including 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.

Mr. Oliphant stated in his affidavit his belief that the two referenced losses provide grounds for nonrenewal under 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2916-A(2). He submitted documentation of each claim which identified the policy, the driver, the vehicle, the date and circumstances of the loss, and the amounts paid.

Mr. Mills testified that no one was injured in the May 8, 2003, loss, and he stated he did not know to whom the $2,500 injury payment had been made. He stated that the car in front of him stopped as he changed lanes, and that he had stopped with his vehicle slightly tapping the car in front of him. He testified that he was then hit from behind by a large truck, causing extensive damage to his own vehicle.

Mr. Sharon stated that May 17, 2003, occurrence was an accident, but argued that the May 3, 2003, occurrence cannot be considered an accident as a rear-end collision is exempted from consideration in a nonrenewal action.

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 oral testimony and the Company’s claim record both establish that Mr. Mills’ vehicle was struck from behind on May 8, 2003. The Company did not identify the recipients of the payments it made under the liability coverage nor did it describe how any injuries resulted. Mr. Mills testified that he was not aware that anyone was injured. He also noted that there was no damage to the vehicle in front of him or to his vehicle’s front end, but he stated that his vehicle was extensively damaged in the rear. Section 2916-A(2) specifically provides that if a car is struck from the rear, the incident is not an “accident” within the meaning of the statute. Without evidence to establish that damage meeting the statutory amount or injury occurred in front of the Insured’s vehicle, the May 8, 2003, occurrence cannot be considered an “accident” under § 2916-A(2). Only the single accident of May 17, 2004, meets the statutory requirements. Therefore, the Company has not demonstrated that the requirements of § 2916-A(2) have been met, and the proposed nonrenewal is not permitted under the Maine Automobile Insurance Cancellation Control Act.

INDEX OF RECORD:
Company Exhibit 1 – Affidavit of Glenn Oliphant
Company Exhibit 2 – Post Office Certificate of Mailing
Company Exhibit 3 – 5/17/03 Record
Company Exhibit 4 – 5/03/03 Record
Company Exhibit 5 – Policy Master Record
Company Exhibit 6 – Copy of Policy

Insured Exhibit 1 – Hearing Request

ORDER AND NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS
The intended nonrenewal is not approved. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is directed to renew Policy #13 7471-B12-19A on the same terms as the expiring policy, with appropriate adjustments for changes in filed rates and forms. If a subsequent valid notice of cancellation of the policy was effected in accordance with applicable law, the order to renew the coverage is negated. If a cancellation has taken effect, the policy will instead terminate on the date stated in the subsequent 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 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 October 15, 2004                                              Alessandro A. Iuppa
                                                                                    Superintendent of Insurance

                                                                                    ____________________________________
                                                                                    By Connie Mayette
                                                                                    Designated Hearing Officer

Return to Cancellation / Nonrenewal Hearing Decisions