Opinion
April 12, 1984.
Insurance — Renewal of auto policy — Act of June 5, 1968, P.L. 140 — Scope of appellate review — Violation of constitutional rights — Error of law — Findings of fact — Substantial evidence — Accident with animals.
1. Review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania of a decision of the Insurance Commissioner upholding the non-renewal of an automobile insurance policy is to determine whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed and findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence. [529]
2. An automobile accident wherein a driver swerved to avoid a dog and collided with a parked car doing over two thousand dollars damage as a result of contact with the car is properly considered to be outside the exemption granted to accidents involving damage by contact with animals by provisions of the Act of June 5, 1968, P.L. 140, for purposes of determining whether a policyholder was involved in two accidents within a three year period justifying non-renewal of his automobile insurance policy. [529-30]
Submitted on briefs February 1, 1984, to Judges ROGERS, PALLADINO and BARBIERI, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 2375 C.D. 1980, from the Order of the Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in case of In Re: Appeal of Michael J. Tabas, pursuant to Act No. 78 of 1968 (P.L. 140), as amended by Act No. 248 of 1978 (40 P. S. § 1008), Docket No. PH 80-5-5.
Notice of non-renewal of insurance policy forwarded to insured policyholder. Policyholder filed request for hearing with Insurance Commissioner. Refusal to renew policy upheld. Policyholder appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Michael J. Tabas, appellant, for himself.
Hannah Leavitt, Assistant Attorney General, with her Anthony Geyelin, Assistant Attorney General, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for appellee.
Michael J. Tabas (Petitioner) appeals from an order of the Insurance Commission upholding the nonrenewal of Petitioner's automobile insurance by Sentry Insurance A Mutual Company (Insurer). We affirm.
Under the Automobile Insurance Act (Act), an insurer may not refuse to renew an automobile insurance policy on the basis of one accident within the three year period preceding the renewal date. This reflects a legislative intent to permit a refusal to renew on the basis of more than one accident.
Act of June 5, 1968, P.L. 140, No. 78, as amended, 40 P. S. § 1008.1-1008.11.
We have before us the question of what constitutes an accident for purposes of non-renewal under Section 3(a)(13)(vi) of the Act. This section prohibits non-renewal on the basis of an accident "involving damage by contact with animals or fowl." This is a case of first impression.
40 P. S. § 1008.3(a)(13)(vi).
We note that our scope of review here is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, errors of law were committed or findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence. Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Insurance Department, 63 Pa. Commw. 542, 440 A.2d 645 (1981).
In this case, the Insurer based its decision not to renew on Petitioner's two accidents. Petitioner argues that one of his accidents is exempt from consideration by the Insurer under Section 3(a)(13)(vi), because it involved contact with an animal. If the second accident is exempt, then the Insurer could not refuse to renew Petitioner's policy solely on the basis of Petitioner's one accident.
Petitioner does not dispute his fault in the other accident.
The accident in question occurred when Petitioner swerved to avoid hitting a dog and ran into a parked car. Petitioner also grazed the dog, which ran away. The total damage to both cars was $2,200.
The Commission argues that the damage must be caused by the contact with the animal in order for the accident to be exempt under Section 3(a)(13)(vi). Petitioner's position is that the section was intended to exempt accidents which occurred because of circumstances beyond the driver's control.
We must agree with the interpretation of the Commission. Under our reading of the section, the only accidents which are not eligible for consideration in non-renewals are those involving damage by contact with an animal or fowl.
Although Petitioner says he came in contact with the dog, there was no evidence that damage to either car resulted from that contact.
Because Petitioner was involved in two accidents during the three year period preceding the renewal, the Insurer may refuse to renew the policy.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Insurance Commission.
ORDER
AND NOW, April 12, 1984, the order of the Insurance Commission, at Docket No. PH80-5-5, is hereby affirmed.