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

Patrick & Sharon Mcleod v. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Docket No. INS-06-2072, Decision Issued July 26, 2006.

The insureds requested a hearing following receipt of a notice of homeowners insurance coverage nonrenewal citing the insureds’ loss history as the reason for nonrenewal. Several weeks prior to the hearing, the company submitted a request for ruling maintaining that a hearing should not be granted to the insureds. The hearing officer denied the company’s request finding that the company did not articulate why it believed the insureds were not entitled to a hearing. The company submitted nothing further related to the hearing

Held: For the insureds. The request for ruling is not analogous to testimony from the company at hearing. Thus, it is arguable that the company presented no evidence at the hearing. Even if the request for ruling were construed of as unsworn hearing testimony, however, the company can not prevail in this nonrenewal action. Section 3051 states that a term such as “loss history” by itself is an insufficient explanation of a company’s intention not to renew a policy. Thus, the company’s notice on its face is defective as it asserts only the insureds’ loss experience as the reason for nonrenewal. In its ruling request, the company further introduced reasons for nonrenewal that were not included in the notice of nonrenewal. Section 3051 requires that “[t]he reason or reasons for the intended nonrenewal action must accompany the notice of intent not to renew…”and thus, issues raised at hearing that were not included in the notice of nonrenewal can not be relied upon as permissible grounds for policy nonrenewal. The company has failed to provide sufficient grounds to nonrenew this policy.