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

Hanscom & Hanscom LLC v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Company

Held December 1, 2009 – Docket No. INS-09-2134
Decision Issued: December 14, 2009

The insured requested a hearing to contest the cancellation of a businessowner’s policy for an increase in hazard. The company failed to establish that the cited change had taken place. In addition, the company representative at the hearing stated that she had no personal knowledge of the issues in the case, and she read into the record a statement of events prepared by someone else. The written statement she read was not sworn.

Held: For the insured. In the present case, the company representative who testified had no personal knowledge of the case. In addition, the company had no documentary evidence of the alleged change in the risk. The company was relying upon 24-A M.R.S.A. § 3007(c) which requires the insurer to establish that a substantial change in the risk has occurred, and that the cited change increases the risk of loss. The company had no evidence that a change had occurred.