Opinion
Argued November 16, 1981
December 31, 1981.
Insurance — Refusal to renew automobile policy — Scope of appellate review — Violation of constitutional rights — Error of law — Findings of fact — Substantial evidence — Act of June 5, 1968, P.L. 140 — Accidents.
1. Review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania of an order of the Insurance Commissioner is to determine whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed or findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence. [527]
2. An insurer may properly refuse to renew an automobile policy based upon the insured's involvement in two accidents within a three month period and not based upon any factors proscribed by provisions of the Act of June 5, 1968, P.L. 140. [527]
Argued November 16, 1981, before Judges WILLIAMS, JR., MacPHAIL and PALLADINO, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 492 C.D. 1979, from the Order of the Department of Insurance in case of Julius E. Fioravanti v. Government Employees Insurance Company, dated January 30, 1979.
Refusal to renew automobile policy appealed by insured to the Department of Insurance. Action of non-renewal upheld. Insured appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
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.
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 was not supported by substantial evidence and that he was deprived of certain procedural due process rights.
The record indicates that the hearing had been scheduled twice previously and that the insured had requested continuances. The second continuance was denied for lack of sufficient notice. The insured then failed to appear. Following the upholding of GEICO's non-renewal, Fioravanti appealed here (No. 2581 C.D. 1978), but it was discontinued when the Insurance Department offered the insured another opportunity to present his claim. At the rehearing, the Hearing Officer concluded that the insured had failed to produce evidence tending to prove that GEICO had refused to renew the insurance in violation of the law. We denied the insured's petition for supersedeas.
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. Commw. 94, 394 A.2d 1305 (1978).
Section 3 of Act 78 enumerates those reasons for which an insurance company shall not refuse to renew automobile insurance:
Since the policy non-renewal occurred on July 9, 1978, the Act of June 5, 1968, P.L. 140, 40 P. S. § 1008.3 controls. Section 3 of Act 78 was amended in 1978 by Act of October 5, 1978, P.L. 1060, 40 P. S. § 1008.3.
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.
Fioravanti's claimed deprivation of procedural due process is not properly developed and, in any event, is without merit. The insured was provided with sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard in accordance with regulations found at 31 Pa. Code § 61-6. end;
Affirmed.
ORDER
The Insurance Department order, Fioravanti v. GEICO, dated January 30, 1979, is affirmed.