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 : Docket No. INS-09-2077 Decision
Robert & Rosie Scammon v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Company
Held August 11, 2009 – Docket No. INS-09-2077
The insured requested a hearing to contest the cancellation of a homeowners policy for failure to comply with loss control recommendations. At hearing, the company discussed the loss control recommendations. The company admitted that it did not definitively know the status of the repairs but emphasized that the insureds did not provide the requested documentation of compliance.
Held: For the insured. For the insured. The Maine Property Insurance Cancellation Control Act, in 24-A M.R.S.A. § 3049(10), permits cancellation if the insured fails to comply with reasonable loss control recommendations within 90 days after notice from the insurer. While the company did establish that its loss control recommendations were reasonable, it did not offer affirmative testimony or evidence establishing that the loss control recommendations had not been addressed. Instead, the company relied upon the insureds’ failure to provide it with documentation of compliance and their lack of appearance at the hearing.
The insurer bears the burden of proof in this proceeding. Although the company has successfully demonstrated that the insureds had at least 90 days in which to comply with reasonable recommendations after receiving notification of intent to cancel, the Superintendent will not infer that the insureds have not addressed the recommendations simply because the insureds failed to appear at this proceeding or provide documentation of completion to the company. Instead, the company must have proof that the insureds failed to comply with the recommendations by inspecting or attempting to inspect the property or by otherwise obtaining timely information on the status of the repairs at the end of the 90-day period. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Superintendent hereby concludes that the company has not established adequate grounds for policy cancellation.
Last Updated: January 16, 2014
|Copyright © 2006 All rights reserved.|