Archives: 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011| 2012

Doreen Thibodeau & Hazel Hooper v. Providence Mutual Fire Insurance Company
Docket No. INS-05-2011, Decision Issued June 29, 2005

The insured requested a hearing following receipt of a notice of homeowners insurance nonrenewal citing noncompliance with underwriting guidelines due to the insured’s dog and two other reasons. At hearing, the company argued only that the insured’s breed of dog did not meet its underwriting guidelines. The insured maintained that her dogs are well behaved and not aggressive.

Held: For the insured. The company cited three reasons in its notice of nonrenewal but provided no argument or evidence relating to two of the reasons. Therefore, the company has not sustained its burden of proof with respect to those two issues. Regarding the dog breed reason, the company presented no specific information about the insured’s dog and only commented on the breed in general. Title 24-A M.R.S.A. § 3054 indicates that an insurer’s reliance upon its underwriting guidelines alone is insufficient proof in a nonrenewal action. Accordingly, the company has failed to demonstrate that its reason for nonrenewal is in good faith and related to the insurability of the property, and none of the cancellation grounds articulated in 24-A M.R.S.A. § 3049 apply.

Return to Cancellation / Nonrenewal Hearing Decisions