Opinion
No. 1589 C.D. 2012
04-17-2013
Corey A. Poindexter v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Appellant
BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles (DOT) appeals from the Lackawanna County Common Pleas Court's (trial court) July 18, 2012 order reversing DOT's order suspending the registration privilege of Corey A. Poindexter (Poindexter) for three months. The sole issue before this Court is whether the trial court erred in reinstating Poindexter's registration privilege when Poindexter failed to offer clear and convincing evidence to rebut DOT's proof that his automobile liability insurance policy was cancelled on February 28, 2012. We reverse.
Progressive Specialty Insurance (Progressive) notified DOT that Poindexter's insurance policy on his 2007 Hyundai sedan terminated on February 28, 2012. As a result of this information, DOT requested proof of insurance from Poindexter for that vehicle. Because either no proof was submitted, or the proof was unacceptable, DOT mailed Poindexter an official notification on May 6, 2012, informing him that his Hyundai's registration was being suspended for three months effective June 10, 2012. Poindexter appealed the suspension to the trial court. On July 18, 2012, the trial court held a hearing and reversed DOT's order, thereby reinstating Poindexter's registration privileges. DOT appealed to this Court.
"This Court's scope of review is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law or manifestly abused its discretion in reaching its decision." Dinsmore v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 932 A.2d 350, 353 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
DOT argues that Poindexter failed to present clear and convincing evidence that his Hyundai's insurance policy was not cancelled effective February 28, 2012. Specifically, DOT contends that Poindexter's testimony, and production of two Progressive financial responsibility cards, are not sufficient to rebut DOT's proof that his automobile liability insurance policy was cancelled on February 28, 2012. We agree.
Section 1786(d)(1) of the Vehicle Code requires DOT to "suspend the registration of a vehicle for a period of three months if it determines the required financial responsibility was not secured . . . ." 75 Pa.C.S. § 1786(d)(1). In order to sustain a suspension on these grounds, DOT must prove that: "the vehicle is registered or of a type that is required to be registered under this title; and . . . there has been either notice to the department of a lapse, termination or cancellation in the financial responsibility coverage as required by law for that vehicle . . . ." 75 Pa.C.S. § 1786(d)(3)(i), (ii). This Court has held that:
DOT may satisfy its burden by certifying that it received documents or electronic transmissions from the insurance company informing DOT that the insurance coverage has been terminated. Once DOT meets that burden, two presumptions arise: (1) that the cancellation was effective under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1377(b)(2)[;] and (2) that the vehicle in
question lacks the requisite financial responsibility under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1786(d)(3)(ii).Choff v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 861 A.2d 442, 446-47 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (citations and footnote omitted). DOT met its burden by admitting into evidence the certified registration record for Poindexter's Hyundai. The certification gave rise to the presumptions that Poindexter's cancellation was effective, and that his vehicle was at least temporarily uninsured.
The certified record contained:
1) OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SUSPENSION DATED & MAILED 05/06/12, EFFECTIVE 06/10/12; 2) ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION FROM [PROGRESSIVE] CERTIFYING THE TERMINATION OF INSURANCE ON 2/28/12; 3) COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF VEHICLE INQUIRY DETAIL BY TITLE SCREEN FROM [DOT] RECORDS FOR A 2007 HYUNDAI SEDAN, WITH TITLE NO. [********]; LICENSE PLATE NO. [*******] OWNED BY [POINDEXTER] WITH REGISTRATION EXPIRATION DATE FEBRUARY 2013; 4) LETTER DATED 03/20/12, TO [POINDEXTER] REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF INSURANCE CANCELLATION, AND 5) REGISTRATION RECORD, WHICH APPEARS IN THE FILE OF [POINDEXTER] REGISTRATION NUMBER [********], IN [DOT] HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA.
These presumptions can be overcome "by . . . clear and convincing evidence that the vehicle was insured at all relevant times." Section 1786(d)(3)(ii) of the Vehicle Code. This Court has defined clear and convincing evidence as "[evidence] that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." Fell v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 925 A.2d 232, 239 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (quoting Fagan v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 875 A.2d 1195, 1199 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005)(quotation marks omitted)).
At the hearing, Poindexter testified that he paid Progressive a premium on March 28, 2012, produced two Progressive financial responsibility cards - one with an effective date of February 29, 2012, and one with an effective date of April 12, 2012 - and presented a doctor's note that he was unable to drive from the beginning of February through May, 2012. However, this Court has held that
This Court notes that one of the exceptions to registration suspension for lack of insurance is that "[t]he owner or registrant proves to the satisfaction of [DOT] 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." Section 1786(d)(2) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1786(d)(2). While this testimony may support the conclusion that Poindexter did not operate the vehicle during the uninsured period, it does not support the other requirements of this exception. --------
uncorroborated testimony is insufficient to meet the strict evidentiary standard required to overcome the statutory presumption. Additionally, a financial responsibility insurance card is insufficient to prove coverage on a particular date because if insurance coverage is cancelled or terminated, the policyholder would still have the proof of insurance card indicating that he or she had insurance during the entire policy period.Fell, 925 A.2d at 239 (citation omitted). This fact is especially true when, as here, the premium payment could equally be a pre-payment or a past payment, and two financial responsibility cards are produced for the same vehicle with different effective dates. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in ruling that Poindexter's testimony, together with the financial responsibility cards, proved that Poindexter was insured on February 29, 2012.
For all of the above reasons, the trial court's order is reversed.
/s/_________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of April, 2013, the Lackawanna County Common Pleas Court's July 18, 2012 order is reversed.
/s/_________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
Reproduced Record at 19a.