The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-3816 Civil PA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : CIVIL ACTION – LAW : NO. 06-3816 CIVIL ELIZABETH J. RICHWINE, : Defendant : IN RE: REGISTRATION SUSPENSION APPEAL BEFORE HESS, J. OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner, Elizabeth J. Richwine, seeks reversal of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s (“PennDOT”) three-month registration suspension of three family vehicles. Ms. Richwine, proceeding pro se, received a letter from her insurance company, First Liberty Insurance Company (“FLIC”), dated March 22, 2006, notifying her that a payment of $327.00 was due by April 11, 2006. N.T. 11. On April 3, 2006, she paid only $227.00, citing a key-stoke error. N.T. 11. At the end of April, she received a refund check from FLIC in the amount of $178.00 and made another payment in the amount of $227.00 on May 8, 2006. N.T. 12. On May 13, 2006, the Richwines left Pennsylvania and did not return until June 9, 2006. N.T. 12- 13. It was not until June 11, 2006, that she became aware of PennDOT’s letter, notifying her that due to a lapse in insurance her registration would be suspended. At that time, she also discovered additional refund checks from FLIC. N.T. 13. Ms. Richwine claimed she never received the FLIC letter dated April 11, 2006. A copy of the letter was faxed to her on June 11, 2006. The next day she obtained insurance from another company but was informed by NO. 06-3816 CIVIL PennDOT that her registration would still be suspended and her remedies were limited to filing an appeal. N.T. 13. At the hearing, PennDOT presented evidence of Ms. Richwine’s lapse in insurance that led to the registration suspension. The Department submitted three copies of letters from FLIC, all dated April 11, 2006, notifying the Department that insurance on Ms. Richwine’s Chrysler and Jaime Richwine’s (her husband) Dodge and Volkswagen, had been terminated. N.T. 5-7. PennDOT also submitted copies of letters to the Richwines, dated May 10, 2006, noticing them that their insurance had been cancelled and letters mailed on June 26, 2006, notifying the Richwines that registration would be suspended for three months, effective July 31, 2006. N.T. 5-8. DISCUSSION A. Ms. Richwine followed the incorrect procedure for appealing three vehicle suspensions and in accordance with Brogan v. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 643 A.2d 1126 (Pa. Cmmw.Ct. 94), PennDOT’s motion to quash should be granted. In Brogan, the petitioner sought review of an order from the trial court quashing her appeal for the suspension of her motor vehicle registration. 643 A.2d at 1126. Brogan was notified of the registration suspension for two vehicles by two separate notices and subsequently filed one appeal to the trial court. Id. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court expressly “conclude[d] that a party may not file a single statutory appeal from multiple suspension notices relating to separate vehicle registrations.” Id. at 1128. Notwithstanding, Brogan was still permitted to pursue the appeal on one suspension. See id. at 1127 n.3. The facts of the case at bar are analogous to those in Brogan. Ms. Richwine received three separate notices from PennDOT regarding the registration suspension for three vehicles. 2 NO. 06-3816 CIVIL Thereafter, she appealed all three notices to this Court in the form of one appeal. Although Ms. Richwine admits this was a mistake, N.T. 4, Brogan clearly states that this practice is prohibited and serves as grounds for the appeal to be quashed. As in Brogan, this Court is permitted to reach the merits on the appeal of one vehicle. In this case, that one vehicle is the Chrysler 1 registered in Ms. Richwine’s name. B. Ms. Richwine should have challenged the lapse of insurance coverage with the Insurance Commissioner rather than this Court. Section 1786(d)(5) of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibiity Law, 75 Pa.C.S. 1786(d)(5) (2006), specifically states that “[a]n alleged lapse, cancellation or termination of a policy of insurance by an insurer may only be challenged by requesting review by the Insurance Commissioner. . . .” Id. In Fagan v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 875 A.2d 1195 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2005), the court concluded that the trial court erred when it permitted the petitioner to raise the defense of improper policy termination in a registration suspension proceeding. Id. at 1198. In Fagan, the petitioner raised as a defense to her suspension that she was advised by an unidentified employee of her insurance company that her policy would remain in effect. Id. at 1197. Ms. Fagan’s policy was rescinded after her initial premium payment did not clear. Id. The court determined that the trial court had exceeded its scope of review and that Ms. Fagan’s complaint would have been more properly lodged with the Insurance Commissioner. Id. 1197- 98. At the hearing, Petitioner’s testimony reflects a complaint more akin to problems with a 1 The remaining vehicles are, in any event, titled in the name of Ms. Richwine’s husband. She is arguably without standing to appeal those registration suspensions. 3 NO. 06-3816 CIVIL lapse in insurance rather than a complaint involving an improper suspension by PennDOT. Ms. Richwine testified she had made a mistake by paying $100 less on her April 11 premium. N.T. 11. Although the payment was insufficient, she was not timely notified by her insurance company and “assumed everything was taken care of.” N.T. 11. On May 8 she made another payment, and apparently at that time had not yet been notified that the vehicles’ registration was in jeopardy. N.T. 12. Although Ms. Richwine acted honestly in her efforts to maintain her insurance, the dispute remains with the insurance company, not PennDOT. C. Ms. Richwine’s registration suspension appeal must be denied because she failed to comply with 75 Pa.C.S. 1786’s financial responsibility requirements and did not present clear and convincing evidence that her vehicles remained insured during the time in question. Pennsylvania law requires owners to register motor vehicles with the state and maintain financial responsibility (insurance). § 1786(a). If PennDOT determines that a registrant has not secured insurance on a vehicle, it “shall” suspend the registration for three months. § 1786(d)(1). Should registrant object, he or she may seek review by this Court. § 1786(d)(3). On appeal, this Court’s review is specifically limited to determining whether: “(i) the vehicle is registered or of a type that is required to be registered under this title; and (ii) there has been … notice to the department of a lapse, termination or cancellation in the financial responsibility coverage as required by law for that vehicle. . . .” § 1786(d)(3)(i), (ii). Once PennDOT has been noticed, there is a presumption that the vehicle lacks proper insurance and the presumption may be overcome only if the registrant provides clear and convincing evidence that the vehicle was insured at all relevant times. § 1786(d)(3)(ii). 4 NO. 06-3816 CIVIL PennDOT has presented a prima facie case for the registration suspension of Ms. Richwine’s vehicles. See Fagan, 875 A.2d at 1198. The three vehicles in question are the types of vehicles that must be registered and maintain insurance coverage. PennDOT provided this Court with evidence of notices from FLIC that insurance coverage for each vehicle had been terminated. See Resp.’s Exs. 1, 2, 3. Therefore, there is a presumption that the vehicles lacked proper insurance. See § 1786(d)(3)(ii); see also Fagan, 875 A.2d at 1198. Ms. Richwine may only overcome this presumption by providing clear and convincing evidence that the vehicles were insured at all times. The record is devoid of any such evidence. To the contrary, Ms. Richwine admits that at least one of the vehicles was operated for an extended period of time without insurance. Though the registration suspensions in this case appear to result from an innocent mistake, we have no alternative but to uphold them. ORDER AND NOW, this 1st day of December, 2006, the appeal of Elizabeth J. Richwine from the suspension of motor vehicle registration is DENIED. BY THE COURT, _______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, J. George Kabusk, Esquire For PennDOT Elizabeth J. Richwine Pro Se 5 PA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : CIVIL ACTION – LAW : NO. 06-3816 CIVIL ELIZABETH J. RICHWINE, : Defendant : IN RE: REGISTRATION SUSPENSION APPEAL BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER AND NOW, this 1st day of December, 2006, the appeal of Elizabeth J. Richwine from the suspension of motor vehicle registration is DENIED. BY THE COURT, _______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, J. George Kabusk, Esquire For PennDOT Elizabeth J. Richwine Pro Se :rlm