86 Pa. Commw. 400 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1984
Opinion by
Harry J. Perry (Petitioner) appeals an order of the Acting Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania (Commissioner) upholding the non-renewal of Petitioner’s automobile insurance by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual). Liberty Mutual determined not to renew Petitioner’s policy because Alice Perry, Petitioner’s wife, was involved in two accidents during a 36-month period of time while operating automobiles owned by Petitioner.
Petitioner initially contends that his wife was not at fault in the first accident. Under Section 3(b) of the Automobile Insurance Act (Act),
Section 3(a) (13) of the Act
Petitioner next contends that Liberty Mutual forfeited any right to refuse renewal of his policy when
Petitioner also contends that ,the notice of non-renewal mailed by Liberty Mutual was defective under Section 5(3) of the Law
Finally, Petitioner contends that Liberty Mutual violated Section 3(a)(1) of the Act
Affirmed.
Order
Now, December 12, 1984, the order of the Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania, at Docket No. PH82-4-2, is hereby affirmed.
Act of June 5, 1968, P.L. 140, No. 78, as amended, 40 P.S. §1008.3 (b).
40 P.S. §1008.3(a) (13).
Section 3(a) of the Law, 40 P.'S. §1008.3(a), provides:
Ño insurer shall cancel or refuse to write or renew a policy for one or more of the following reasons:
(13) Any accident which occurred under the following circumstances:
(i) auto lawfully parked (if the parked vehicle rolls from the parked position then any such accident is charged to the person who parked the auto) ;
*403 (ii) the applicant, owner or other resident operator is reimbursed by, or on behalf of, a person who is responsible for the accident or has judgment against such person;
(iii) auto is struck in the rear by another vehicle and the applicant or other resident operator has not been convicted of a moving traffic violation in connection with this accident;
(iv) operator of the other auto involved in the accident was convicted of a moving traffic violation and the applicant or resident operator was not convicted of a moving traffic violation in connection with the accident;
(v) auto operated by the applicant or any resident operator is struck by a “hit-and-run” vehicle, if the accident is reported to the proper authority within twenty-four hours by the applicant or resident operator;
(vi) accident involving damage by contact with animals or fowl;
(vii) accident involving physical damage, limited to and caused by flying gravel, missiles, or falling objects;
(viii) accident occurring when using auto in response to any emergency if the operator of the auto at the time of the accident was a paid or volunteer member of any police or fire department, first aid squad, or any law enforcement agency. This exception does not include an accident occurring after the auto ceases .to be used in response to such emergency; or
(ix) accidents which occurred more than thirty-six months prior to the later of the inception of the insurance policy or the upcoming anniversary date of the policy.
Although not mandated by the Act, it is apparently Liberty Mutual’s policy to refuse renewal only if it considers the two accidents to 'be “at fault.”
40 P.S. §1008.9(e).
40 P.S. §1008.5(3)
40 P.S. §1008.3(a).
40 P.S. §1008.3(a) (1).
Both Petitioner and his wife were over 80 years of age at the time of the refusal to renew.
Footnote 12 in the Commissioner’s adjudication records Petitioner’s three facts advanced by him to establish age discrimination as follows:
(]) Liberty Mutual knew Perry’s age (N.T. 3-24-83 at 48) ;
(2) The testimony of Liberty Mutual’s witness contains a discrepancy in dates (N.T. 3-24-83 at 57-60) ; and
(3) Liberty Mutual’s computer was not programmed to retrieve age correlation beyond age 65 (D-37; P.B. at 19).