Opinion
No. 446 C.D. 2014
10-17-2014
Jamey Chaousis v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Appellant
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE PELLEGRINI
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles (Department) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County (trial court) sustaining the statutory appeal of Jamey Chaousis (Chaousis) from a three-month suspension of his vehicle registration for failure to maintain the required financial responsibility. We reverse the trial court's order and reinstate the Department's registration suspension.
The facts of this case are not in dispute. Chaousis is the registered owner of a 2009 Chevrolet station wagon that was insured by GEICO Casualty Company (GEICO). By letter mailed October 1, 2013, the Department informed Chaousis that it had received information from GEICO that the insurance policy covering his vehicle was terminated on September 19, 2013. The letter requested that Chaousis provide verification of insurance coverage on the 2009 Chevrolet or his vehicle registration would be suspended for three months. Having received no response from Chaousis, the Department sent him an official notice dated November 17, 2013, informing him that the registration for the vehicle would be suspended for three months effective December 22, 2013, as required by Section 1786(d) of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL). Chaousis appealed to the trial court.
75 Pa. C.S. §1786(d). Section 1786(a) of the MVFRL requires that "[e]very 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). Section 1786(d)(1) provides for the suspension of registration and operating privilege for failure to maintain the required financial responsibility:
The [Department] 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 and shall suspend the operating privilege of the owner or registrant for a period of three months if the department determines that the owner or registrant has operated or permitted the operation of the vehicle without the required financial responsibility. The operating privilege shall not be restored until the restoration fee for operating privilege provided by section 1960 (relating to reinstatement of operating privilege or vehicle registration) is paid.75 Pa. C.S. §1786(d)(1).
Before the trial court, the Department offered the following documents into evidence: (1) the official notice of suspension of registration dated November 17, 2013; (2) the Department's computer printout of the vehicle's details; (3) the Department's initial letter to Chaousis dated October 1, 2013; (4) an electronic transmission from GEICO regarding the termination of insurance for nonpayment; and (5) the certification of Anita M. Wasko, director of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, certifying that all of the Department's submitted documents were true and correct.
In response, Chaousis testified that he was out of town working at a power station in Waynesburg and using a vehicle provided by his employer when the insurance on his vehicle lapsed. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 17a-18a). He stated that he received the Department's notifications after he returned home at which time he immediately purchased insurance from a different insurance company on November 15, 2013. (Id. at 16a-17a). He further testified that his vehicle was not operated during the lapse in insurance. (Id. at 17a).
The trial court sustained Chaousis's appeal and rescinded the Department's registration suspension because he was out of town when his insurance lapsed on September 19, 2013, he immediately obtained other insurance on November 15, 2013, when he learned that the insurance had lapsed, and he did not drive the vehicle during the period that it was not insured. This appeal followed.
Our review of a trial court's order sustaining an appeal from a registration suspension is limited to determining whether the trial court committed a reversible error or abused its discretion, and whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Deklinski v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 38 A.2d 1191, 1194 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007), appeal denied, 959 A.2d 321 (Pa. 2008).
On appeal, the Department argues that the trial court erred in sustaining Chaousis's statutory appeal because the Department satisfied its prima facie burden supporting the registration suspension and because Chaousis failed to present any evidence that would satisfy one of the three statutory exceptions in Section 1786 of the MVFRL. We agree.
In the Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion filed in support of its order, the trial court concedes that it erred in sustaining Chaousis's statutory appeal and that its order should be reversed or that the case should be remanded so that the appeal can be dismissed. Chaousis did not file an appellate brief in support of the trial court's order. --------
In registration suspension cases arising under Section 1786 of the MVFRL, the Department bears the initial burden of proving that a lapse in the required financial responsibility has occurred. The Department must prove that: (1) the vehicle is registered or is of a type required to be registered; and (2) it received notice that financial responsibility on the vehicle has been terminated or that proof of financial responsibility was not provided when requested. Section 1786(d)(3)(1)(ii) of the MVFRL, 75 Pa. C.S. §1786(d)(3)(1)(ii). The Department may satisfy its burden by certifying that it received documents or electronic transmissions from the insurance company informing the Department that the insurance coverage has been terminated. McGonigle v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 37 A.3d 1273, 1274 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). See also Deklinski, 938 A.2d at 1194 ("'The [D]epartment's certification of its receipt of documents or electronic transmission from an insurance company informing the [D]epartment that the person's coverage has lapsed, been canceled or terminated shall also constitute prima facie proof' of such termination." (quoting Section 1377(b)(2) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1377(b)(2), and emphasis in original). The burden then shifts to Chaousis to rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence that insurance was continuously maintained on his vehicle, see Section 1786(d)(3)(ii), or, alternatively, that he fits within one of the three exceptions set forth in Section 1786(d)(2)(i)-(iii). Deklinski, 938 A.2d at 1194. Those exceptions are, in pertinent part:
(i) The owner or registrant proves to the satisfaction of the [D]epartment 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 the operation of the vehicle during the period of lapse in financial responsibility.75 Pa. C.S. §1786(d)(2)(i)-(iii).
(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 ...
(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).
Because there is no allegation that Chaousis is a member of the United States armed services or that he maintained only a seasonal registration, the only pertinent exception is subsection (d)(2)(i). However, an owner of a vehicle does not fall within this exception if the lapse in financial responsibility coverage lasts longer than 31 days. See Banks v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 856 A.2d 294, 296 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). That is so even if the vehicle was not driven during the time the vehicle was uninsured. Burton v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 973 A.2d 473, 475 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009); Jones v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 723 A.2d 1090, 1091 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). The lapse in this case was for 57 days, and the MVFRL explicitly provides for a suspension of the vehicle registration if the lapse is more than 31 days.
Accordingly, the Department properly suspended Chaousis's vehicle registration for three months under Section 1786(d)(1) of the MVFRL and the order of the trial court is reversed.
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of October, 2014, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County dated February 13, 2014, is hereby reversed, and the three-month suspension of Jamey Chaousis's vehicle registration is hereby reinstated.
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge