Archives: 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009

Jeffrey & Michelle Paquette v. Concord General Mutual Insurance Company
Docket No. INS-07-2010, Decision Issued March 1, 2007.

The insured requested a hearing following receipt of a notice of homeowners insurance cancellation citing a physical change in the exposure and the existence of a trampoline on the insured premises as the reasons for cancellation. At hearing, the company argued that the insureds failed to send the company a statement indicating that the trampoline had been removed. The insureds did not attend the hearing.

Held: For the insureds. The applicable statute, 24-A M.R.S.A. § 3049(7), allows cancellation if the insured has been notified that the policy will be cancelled if the trampoline is not removed and the trampoline, after such notice, remains on the property 30 or more days after the date of the notice. Section 3049(5) permits cancellation for physical changes in the insured property that result in the property becoming uninsurable.
Although the Company established the recent existence of a trampoline on the insured premises, it has not demonstrated that the insureds were notified that they could avoid policy cancellation by removing the trampoline within the specified time period. The company further has not shown that the insureds did not remove the trampoline. The insureds’ failure to provide a statement to the company does not demonstrate their failure to remove the trampoline.
Finally, although the company invoked section 3049(5) as an applicable cancellation ground, it has not demonstrated that if the trampoline still exists on the property its presence is a change in the property. We are unable to discern when the insureds first installed the trampoline on the property. It could have even existed at policy inception. The company further has not demonstrated that the property is uninsurable as a result of the trampoline.