Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HARRY J. PERRY v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (12/12/84)

decided: December 12, 1984.

HARRY J. PERRY, PETITIONER
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, ANTHONY A. GEYELIN, ACTING INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in case of In Re: Appeal of Harry J. Perry v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Docket No. PH82-4-2.

COUNSEL

John A. Eichman, III, for petitioner.

Daniel J. Gallagher, with him, Joseph R. Thompson, for respondent, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

Samuel R. Marshall, Assistant Counsel, with him, Beth Sheligo, for respondent, Insurance Department of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Judges Williams, Jr., and MacPhail, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barbieri.

Author: Barbieri

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 401]

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.

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 402]

Our scope of review of an order of the Insurance Commission is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law was committed or the findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence. Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Insurance Department, 63 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 542, 545, 440 A.2d 645, 646 (1981).

Petitioner initially contends that his wife was not at fault in the first accident. Under Section 3(b) of the Automobile Insurance Act (Act),*fn1 "[n]o insurer shall cancel or refuse to renew a policy of automobile insurance on the basis of one accident within the thirty-six month period prior to the upcoming anniversary date of the policy." By implication, two accidents justify an insurer's cancellation or refusal to renew. Tabas Appeal, 81 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 527, 473 A.2d 1143, 1144 (1984).

Section 3(a)(13) of the Act*fn2 provides that an insurer cannot cancel or refuse to write or renew a policy based on an accident which occurs under any of nine different enumerated circumstances.*fn3 If the first accident involved any of these enumerated circumstances, then Liberty Mutual could not refuse to renew Petitioner's policy solely on the basis of Petitioner's

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 403]

    second accident. Tabas Appeal, 81 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 427, 473 A.2d at 1144. Petitioner, however, contends only that his wife was not at fault in the first accident. Since the Act nowhere states that an insurer must renew a policy merely because the insured was not at ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.