Skip Maine state header navigation
![]() |
| Home | Contact Us | Careers | Calendar |
|
Maine.gov
> PFR Home
> Insurance Regulation
> Cancellation Hearing Index
> Cancellation / Nonrenewal Docket No. INS 04-15540 Decision
Archives: 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008
This proceeding arose upon a request for hearing made by Andrew Atripaldi (the “Insured”) to contest the pending cancellation of automobile insurance coverage provided by Concord General Mutual Insurance Company (the “Company.”) On October 15, 2004, the Company mailed a notice of cancellation effective November 4, 2004, on policy number B764011 citing “payment that was returned by your bank because of insufficient funds.” as the grounds for cancellation. Pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2920, the Insured's hearing request was made within the statutory time period. A hearing in this matter was held on December 1, 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 cancellation. Carla Aversa, Customer Service Manager of the Company, submitted a sworn statement on behalf of the Company in lieu of appearance at the hearing. The Insured did not appear at the hearing or submit a statement in lieu of appearance. FINDINGS OF FACT
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW Ms. Aversa stated in her affidavit her belief that the Company’s nonpayment cancellation notice met the statutory requirements in 24-A M.R.S.A. §§ 2914, 2915. She submitted copies of the rejected check, the cancellation notice, and confirmation of delivery. She also submitted a certified copy of the subject policy showing a policy term that expired more than two years ago. 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 cancellation exist. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Superintendent hereby concludes that the Company has not established adequate grounds for policy cancellation. The Company demonstrated that the notice of cancellation was received by the Insured on October 20, 2004, but it failed to establish the due date of the premium in question. Section § 2914(1) specifically requires that in order to be effective, the cancellation notice must be received by the Insured after the premium due date. No payment due date can be discerned from the outdated, expired policy documents presented. As the validity of the notice cannot be established without information demonstrating that the Insured received the cancellation notice after the premium due date, the Company has failed to meet the requirements of section 2914(1) for cancellation due to nonpayment of premium. INDEX OF RECORD: ORDER AND NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 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 December 8, 2004 Alessandro A. Iuppa ____________________________________ Last Updated: July 16, 2008 |
| Copyright © 2006 All rights reserved. |