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

This proceeding arose upon a request for hearing made by Bruce & Helen Leddy (the “Insureds”) to contest the pending nonrenewal of automobile insurance coverage provided by York Insurance Company of Maine (the “Company.”) On September 14, 2004, the Company mailed a notice of nonrenewal effective November 14, 2004, on policy number YMKA89030 citing “Two or more accidents in excess of $1,000.00: for Bruce 11.23.03 in Florida $2701 and 4.9.04 in Mass $3108” as the grounds for nonrenewal. Pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2920, the Insureds’ hearing request was made within the statutory time period.

A hearing in this matter was held on October 12, 2004, pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2920 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. Heather Rosewall, Personal Lines Senior Underwriter, represented the Company at the hearing. Bruce Leddy represented the Insureds at the hearing.

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

1. The Company has insured the Insureds’ automobiles since at least 2001.
2. On November 23, 2003, Mr. Leddy struck a curb while operating a vehicle insured under the policy. The Company paid $2,701.07 in collision damages after the $500 deductible was applied.
3. On April 9, 2004, Mr. Leddy struck a large rock in the road while operating a vehicle insured under the policy. The Company paid $3,108.40 in collision damages after the $500 deductible was applied.
4. At the time of the hearing, one vehicle remained on the policy.

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 or under another policy issued by the same insurer for a motor vehicle in the same household, 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, and provides that when more than one motor vehicle in a household is insured by the same company, the aggregate number of accidents that would permit nonrenewal must be increased by one for each additional motor vehicle insured.

Ms. Rosewall testified that Mr. Leddy has had two accidents meeting the requirements of the statute. She submitted a printout of the claim history on the policy, highlighting the collision losses of November 23, 2003, and April 9, 2004. She stated that the losses occurred within the prior 36 months, involved vehicles insured under the subject policy, and exceeded the statutory threshold for damages.

Mr. Leddy testified that the 2004 accident should not be considered his fault. He stated that there were several large rocks in the road and that several other vehicles were damaged from striking them. He also argued that the Company had insured two vehicles at the time, and referenced the aggregate wording in the statute. He stated his belief that the statute required a total of three accidents before the policy could be nonrenewed. He also stated, however, that he has requested one of the vehicles to be removed from the policy as it is now registered and insured in Florida; therefore, only one vehicle is insured on the policy at this time.

The Superintendent of Insurance has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Title 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 established adequate grounds for policy nonrenewal.

The Company has demonstrated that both accidents involved a driver and vehicle insured under the policy, both exceeded the required damage amounts, and both occurred within the 36 months prior to the yearly anniversary date of the policy. Neither of the accidents cited in the reason for nonrenewal meets any of the exceptions provided in the statute; therefore, both accidents are applicable for consideration. It is noted that a third accident occurring August 25, 2004, was listed in the claims history. As that accident was not listed in the reason for nonrenewal, it does not have an impact on this action.

In addition, the aggregate number of vehicles on the policy is only a consideration when no individual driver has been involved in two or more accidents. As Mr. Leddy was the driver in both accidents, the aggregate number of accidents for all drivers is not an issue.

As the Company demonstrated that all elements of the statutory requirements were met, the nonrenewal is permitted under the Maine Automobile Insurance Cancellation Control Act.

INDEX OF RECORD:
Company Exhibit 1 – Copy of Policy
Company Exhibit 2 – Post Office Certificate of Mailing
Company Exhibit 3 –Claim History Documentation

Insured Exhibit 1 – Hearing Request

ORDER AND NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS
The intended nonrenewal is approved. is directed to continue coverage pursuant to M.R.S.A. 24-A § until 12:01 a.m. on November 19, 2004, to provide an opportunity for the policyholder to obtain other coverage. Coverage shall continue until November 19 unless a subsequent valid notice of cancellation of the policy has been effected in accordance with applicable law. If such cancellation has taken effect, the policy will instead terminate on the date stated in that 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 aggrieved nonparty whose interests are substantially and directly affected may initiate an appeal within 40 days of the date of this Decision and Order. There is no automatic stay pending appeal; application for stay may be made in the manner provided in 5 M.R.S.A. § 11004.

Dated November 4, 2004                                             Alessandro A. Iuppa
                                                                                    Superintendent of Insurance

                                                                                    ____________________________________
                                                                                    by Connie Mayette
                                                                                    Designated Hearing Officer

Return to Cancellation / Nonrenewal Hearing Decisions