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

Nancy Beaudry v. Patrons Oxford Insurance Company
Docket No. INS-07-2024, Decision Issued May 3, 2007.

The insured requested a hearing following receipt of a notice of automobile insurance nonrenewal alleging that a household resident had incurred within the past two years two driver’s license suspensions, three convictions for speeding, and two convictions for operating after suspension. At hearing, the company presented evidence of the suspensions and convictions and maintained that the person at issue is a household resident. The insured argued that the person at issue does not live in her household.

Held: For the company. The Maine Automobile Cancellation Control Act, 24-A M.R.S.A. §§ 2911-2924, allows policy nonrenewal if a named insured or other household resident or customary operator has a license suspended, other than other than a first or 2nd suspension under Title 29-A, section 2471, subsection 2 or section 2472, subsection 2 or a suspension under Title 28-A, section 2052, during the policy term, or if the policy is a renewal, within the 180 days immediately preceding its effective date. 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2914(4). Nonrenewal is also permitted if, during the 36 month period preceding the yearly anniversary date of the policy, a named insured or any operator who either resides in the same household or customarily operates an automobile insured under the policy is convicted of operating a motor vehicle in excess of the speed limit on three or more occasions or of operating a motor vehicle without a valid license or registration in effect. 24-A M.R.S.A. §§ 2916(1)(D), 2916(1)(E).

There is no dispute that qualifying convictions and suspensions have occurred. within the time frames identified in the applicable statutes. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the person at issue is a customary operator of the vehicle insured under the policy; however, if the person is a resident of the same household as the insured, the company may decline to renew this policy under one or all of the provisions cited above. Thus, the determinative question is whether the person in question resides in the same household as the insured.

Although the insured asserts that her home contains a separate unit in which the person lives and that the person pays her rent, it is unclear whether the relationship is truly that of landlord-tenant or one of a family sharing expenses. She further did not dispute the characterization of the person as a member of her household at the time the driver exclusion was added to her automobile policy. Although the insured now asserts that the person is not a resident of her household, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the person’s status as a household resident has changed. The Superintendent of Insurance hereby finds that the company has established adequate grounds for policy nonrenewal.