From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cummings v. Commonwealth

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mar 15, 2013
No. 1384 C.D. 2012 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Mar. 15, 2013)

Opinion

No. 1384 C.D. 2012

03-15-2013

Martin F. Cummings, III v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Appellant


BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEAVITT

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles (Department), appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County (trial court) that set aside the Department's suspension of Martin F. Cummings, III's (Registrant) motor vehicle registration. The Department did so because Registrant allowed his automobile insurance on the vehicle to lapse more than 31 days when he became injured and unable to drive. Because Registrant's reason for the lapse did not satisfy any of the Vehicle Code's prescribed exceptions to the 31-day rule, we must reverse.

The facts are undisputed. On February 4, 2012, Cumberland Mutual Fire Insurance Company cancelled Registrant's vehicle insurance policy for non-payment of the premium. As required by law, Cumberland Mutual informed the Department of the cancellation. In turn, the Department wrote to Registrant asking him to verify that he had since obtained valid insurance, but it did not hear from Registrant. On April 9, 2012, the Department suspended his vehicle registration for three months effective May 14, 2012, for failure to maintain financial responsibility on the vehicle as required by Section 1786 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S. §1786.

Section 1786(a) states as follows:

Every motor vehicle of the type required to be registered under this title which is operated or currently registered shall be covered by financial responsibility.
75 Pa. C.S. §1786(a).

Registrant filed a timely appeal. On June 20, 2012, the trial court held a de novo hearing, at which both the Department and Registrant appeared and presented evidence.

The Department submitted into evidence the certified registration record for Registrant's vehicle. The Department also submitted a report from Cumberland Mutual that its insurance policy on Registrant's vehicle had terminated on February 4, 2012. This made out the Department's prima facie case for suspension.

Fell v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 925 A.2d 232, 237 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

Registrant testified, acknowledging that he allowed his automobile insurance to lapse in February 2012. Registrant explained that he lost his job in January 2012 and had no money to pay the insurance premium. That same month he had shoulder surgery that left him unable to drive for several months. During his disability, Registrant relied upon family and friends to provide him transportation. Registrant testified that he obtained insurance for his car on April 18, 2012, when he was medically cleared to drive.

The trial court credited Registrant's testimony concerning his medical incapacity and reasons for allowing his automobile insurance to lapse. Because Registrant had obtained car insurance prior to the effective date of the suspension, the trial court sustained Registrant's appeal and reversed the three-month vehicle registration suspension. The Department now appeals to this Court.

This Court's review of an order of the trial court sustaining a statutory appeal from a suspension of vehicle registration is limited to determining whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and whether the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. Fagan v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 875 A.2d 1195, 1197 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).

On appeal, the Department argues that the trial court erred because Registrant did not satisfy any of the three statutorily defined defenses to a registration suspension for failing to meet the financial responsibility requirements in the Vehicle Code. The trial court's focus on Registrant's financial hardship and medical inability to drive was misplaced. Likewise, the fact that Registrant obtained new insurance prior to the effective date of the suspension was irrelevant. We agree.

Registrant was precluded from filing a brief with this Court.

Under Section 1786(d) of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, the Department must suspend a vehicle's registration for not satisfying the financial responsibility requirements in the Vehicle Code. However, a registrant may avoid a suspension in one of three ways: (1) the lapse in financial responsibility coverage lasted less than 31 days; (2) the lapse occurred while a member of the armed services was on emergency duty; or (3) the lapse coincided with the expiration of a seasonal registration. 75 Pa. C.S. §1786(d)(1),(2). In the absence of one of these circumstances, a three-month registration suspension is mandatory. Banks v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 856 A.2d 294, 296, 297 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). The Vehicle Code does not give the Court discretion to consider hardship or any other equitable factors. Id. at 297.

Specifically, Section 1786(d) states, in relevant part, as follows:

(1) The Department of Transportation shall suspend the registration of a vehicle for a period of three months if it determines the required financial responsibility was not secured as required by this chapter....

(2) Whenever the department revokes or suspends the registration of any vehicle under this chapter, the department shall not restore the registration until the vehicle owner furnishes proof of financial responsibility in a manner determined by the department and submits an application for registration to the department, accompanied by the fee for restoration of registration provided by section 1960. This subsection shall not apply in the following circumstances:

(i) The owner or registrant proves to the satisfaction of the department that the lapse in financial responsibility coverage was for a period of less than 31 days and that the owner or registrant did not operate or permit to operation of the vehicle during the period of lapse in financial responsibility.

(ii) The owner or registrant is a member of the armed services of the United States, the owner or registrant has previously had the financial responsibility required by this chapter, financial responsibility had lapsed while the owner or registrant was on temporary, emergency duty and the vehicle was not operated during the period of lapse in financial responsibility. The exemption granted by this paragraph shall continue for 30 days after the owner or registrant returns from duty as long as the vehicle is not operated until the required financial responsibility has been established.

(iii) The insurance coverage has terminated or financial responsibility has lapsed simultaneously with or subsequent to expiration of a seasonal registration, as provided in section 1307(a.1) (relating to period of registration).
75 Pa. C.S. §1786(d) (emphasis added).

Registrant admitted that his motor vehicle was not covered by insurance from February 4, 2012, to April 18, 2012, a period more than 31 days. He provided no evidence that the lapse was prompted by his military deployment or that the registration was seasonal. Registrant's proffered reasons of his financial hardship and inability to drive are, unfortunately for him, irrelevant. This Court has also held that having a new policy in place before a hearing on a suspension appeal matters not. Wenglicki v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 712 A.2d 355, 356 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). Registrant's vehicle lacked coverage for more than 31 days, and the trial court lacked discretion to grant relief for the reasons proffered by Registrant.

As the Department points out, under Section 1786(g)(2) Registrant could have avoided a three-month registration suspension by voluntarily surrendering his registration plate and card to the Department when his insurance coverage terminated, but he did not do so. 75 Pa. C.S. §1786(g)(2). --------

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed.

/s/_________

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge ORDER

AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2013, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County dated June 20, 2012, in the above captioned matter is hereby REVERSED, and the three-month suspension of Martin F. Cummings, III's vehicle registration is reinstated.

/s/_________

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge


Summaries of

Cummings v. Commonwealth

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mar 15, 2013
No. 1384 C.D. 2012 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Mar. 15, 2013)
Case details for

Cummings v. Commonwealth

Case Details

Full title:Martin F. Cummings, III v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of…

Court:COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Mar 15, 2013

Citations

No. 1384 C.D. 2012 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Mar. 15, 2013)