decided: December 31, 1981.
JULIUS E. FIORAVANTI, PETITIONER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, INSURANCE DEPARTMENT AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS
Appeal from the Order of the Department of Insurance in case of Julius E. Fioravanti v. Government Employees Insurance Company, dated January 30, 1979.
Julius E. Fioravanti, for petitioner.
David T. Kluz, Assistant Attorney General, with him, James R. Farley, Assistant Attorney General, and Edward Biester, Attorney General, for respondents.
Judges Williams, Jr., MacPhail and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 63 Pa. Commw. Page 526]
Julius E. Fioravanti (insured) appeals from an Insurance Department (Department) order upholding Government Employees Insurance Company's (GEICO) non-renewal of automobile insurance. We affirm.
GEICO notified the insured that his automobile insurance would not be renewed because of an unreported accident occurring May 5, 1977 and a reported loss occurring August 16, 1977. Fioravanti contends that the Department's decision denying his claim*fn1 was
[ 63 Pa. Commw. Page 527]
not supported by substantial evidence and that he was deprived of certain procedural due process rights.
Initially, we note that our review is limited to determining whether or not constitutional rights were violated, errors of law were committed or findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence. Crown Life Insurance Co. v. Department of Insurance, 39 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 94, 394 A.2d 1305 (1978).
Section 3 of Act 78*fn2 enumerates those reasons for which an insurance company shall not refuse to renew automobile insurance:
No insurer shall cancel or refuse to write or renew a policy of automobile insurance solely because of the age, residence, race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry or lawful occupation . . . .
Since GEICO's action was not based on any of the factors statutorily proscribed, the Department's order will stand.
GEICO's non-renewal decision is based on two accidents within a three-month period involving the insured's automobile, a fact which the insured admits. Since the insured has failed to establish a statutory violation and since the Department's determination was based on substantial evidence, the order must stand.*fn3
[ 63 Pa. Commw. Page 528]
The Insurance Department order, Fioravanti v. GEICO, dated January 30, 1979, is affirmed.