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

Richard Santospago v. Concord General Mutual Insurance Company

Held December 3, 2009 – Docket No. INS-09-2138
Decision Issued: December 17, 2009

The insured requested a hearing to contest the company’s cancellation of a homeowners policy based upon the property being vacant and custodial care not maintained. The company failed to establish that the property is vacant.

Held: For the insured. 24-A M.R.S.A. § 3049(6) allows cancellation if a property is vacant and lacks custodial care; both elements must be met in order to utilize this ground. The property in question, while unoccupied, is not vacant as it contains substantial furnishings and other personal property. “Vacant” and “unoccupied” are not interchangeable for the purposes of this statute. As the property is not vacant, this statutory reason is not applicable and the cancellation action was not permitted.