Richardson v. Pennsylvania Insurance Department
54 A.3d 420
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- Richardson, pro se, challenges the Department’s March 17, 2011 adjudication upholding Fair Plan’s cancellation of his Pennsylvania property insurance policy.
- Richardson applied for Fair Plan coverage for his Crawford County residence; the policy was issued provisional pending interior inspection.
- Inspection revealed a rear porch roof in collapse; Fair Plan notified that coverage would be curtailed unless repairs were completed and evidence provided by a deadline.
- Richardson did not respond by the deadline; Fair Plan cancelled the policy effective November 27, 2010.
- Richardson alleged he could not repair due to cost, disability, and an ongoing criminal investigation; he sought a hearing and later appealed the cancellation.
- The Department affirmed the cancellation; Richardson requested reconsideration and then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, with Fair Plan intervening.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Richardson’s brief compliance defects justify quashal | Richardson alleging failure to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2101/2111. | Department/Fair Plan contends strict compliance required and defects preclude review. | Amended brief allowed meaningful review; appeal not quashed on this basis. |
| Whether Fair Plan properly cancelled Richardson’s provisional coverage | Underwriting standards or procedures were unclear; improper cancellation. | Fair Plan adhered to Fair Plan Act and its rules; proper notice and deadline observed. | Cancellation upheld; Fair Plan’s process and notices complied with statute and regulations. |
| Whether civil rights were violated by excluding all evidence | Fire-related evidence should have been admitted as relevant to claim. | Department limited evidence to Fair Plan cancellation issues; fire claims fall outside adjudicatory scope. | No constitutional violation; hearing officer properly limited admissible evidence. |
| Whether the Department abused its discretion under Fair Plan Act and procedures | Act 205 or other procedures should govern cancellation; process was flawed. | Fair Plan Act controls; Act 205 not applicable to Fair Plan cancellation. | Department’s decision affirmed; Fair Plan procedures properly applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daly v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 158 Pa.Cmwlth. 130, 631 A.2d 720 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (strict compliance with briefs required but review may proceed with liberally construed pro se filings)
- Union Twp. v. Ethan Michael, Inc., 979 A.2d 431 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (egregious violations may be waived if meaningful review possible)
- Seltzer v. Dep’t of Educ., 782 A.2d 48 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (court may excuse noncompliance to allow meaningful review)
- Woods v. Office of Open Records, 998 A.2d 665 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (pro se filings reviewed liberally when justice requires)
- Russell v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 812 A.2d 780 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (meaningful review can be possible despite noncompliance)
- Dear v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 686 A.2d 423 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (review limited to issues raised and preserved)
- Lang v. Dep't of Ins., 531 A.2d 568 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (scope of review defined for Department orders)
- Stallo v. Ins. Placement Facility of Pennsylvania, 518 A.2d 827 (Pa. Super. 1986) (administrative agency procedures and role of Facility)