Skip Maine state header navigation
Skip All Navigation
|Home | Contact Us | Careers | Calendar|
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Insurance Regulation >Administrative & Enforcement Actions > Cancellation Hearing Index > Cancellation / Nonrenewal : Hearing No. 2006-2107 Decision
Pollyanna Pierce v. AIU Insurance Company
Docket No. INS-06-2107, Decision Issued October 17, 2006.
The insured requested a hearing following receipt of a notice of automobile insurance coverage nonrenewal citing two accidents as the reason for nonrenewal. At hearing, as evidence of the cited accidents, the company representative offered a letter from its claims department that was neither sworn nor notarized. Bureau of Insurance Rule Chapter 355 prohibits the admission of any unsworn statement or accompanying evidence into the hearing record. See Bureau of Insurance Rule Chapter 355 §§ 8 (B), (C). Thus, the letter and its accompanying attachments were excluded from the hearing record as evidence. The insured, however, established the existence of the two accidents through her testimony.
Held: For the insured. Pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2916-A(2), the Maine Automobile Insurance Cancellation Control Act provides grounds for policy nonrenewal when a named insured or any other person who operates a motor vehicle insured under the policy is involved in two or more accidents that result in personal injury or property damage in excess of $1,000. However, a company’s notice of intention not to renew a policy is ineffective unless it is received by the named insured at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the policy. 24-A § M.R.S.A. § 2917. A postal certificate of mailing to the insured at her last known address is conclusive proof of receipt on the third calendar day after mailing. The company, however, failed to provide the certificate of mailing and the company representative testified only that the notice was “issued” on a certain day. Such a statement does not confirm that the company actually mailed the notice on that day. The insured testified that she was certain that she received the notice on a date that falls two days short of the required 30 days prior to the expiration of the policy. The company has not established that it provided proper notice of nonrenewal pursuant to section 2917.
Last Updated: January 16, 2014
|Copyright © 2006 All rights reserved.|