Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-3835 Civil KAREN K. DEKLINSKI and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JOSEPH A. DEKLINSKI, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Petitioners v. : CIVIL ACTION-LAW COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent : No. 06-3835 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUSPENDING VEHICLE REGISTRATION BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, 1., November 27,2006. In this appeal from a suspension of vehicle registration based upon a termination of insurance coverage, Petitioners maintain that the duration of the non-coverage was within the parameters of an exception to the requirement for suspension. 1 A hearing on the petition was held on October 4, 2006. F or the reasons stated in this opinion, the appeal will be sustained and the suspension reversed. STATEMENT OF FACTS Petitioners are Karen K. Deklinski and Joseph A. Deklinski,2 who reside at 406 North Front Street Street, Wormleysburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17043.3 They are, and at all times pertinent to this case were, the owners of a I Petition for Review of Order of Department of Transportation Suspending Vehicle Registration, filed July 6, 2006. A second contention, appearing in Petitioners' post-hearing brief-that, if a lapse of sufficient duration did occur, the three-month suspension was excessive under the circumstances-does not appear in Petitioner's petition, and in any event is incompatible with the applicable statute. See Act ofPebruary 12, 1984, P.L. 26, ~3, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. ~1786(d). 2 Petition for Review of Order of Department of Transportation Suspending Vehicle Registration, filed July 6, 2006. 3 NT. 8, Hearing, October 4,2006 (hereinafter NT. ~. 2000 Saturn sedan.4 Their automobile insurance company is, and was, Allstate Insurance Company. 5 A payment on the policy in the amount of $336.84 was due in February, 2006, and was timely paid by Petitioners on February 18, 2006.6 A check for the next payment, also in the amount of $336.84, was mailed by Petitioners to Allstate on March 8, 2006, prior to the due date.7 However, this payment was apparently not received or was misplaced by the insurance company. 8 In the first week of April, 2006, Petitioners received a notice from Allstate that their insurance had lapsed.9 Upon receipt of this notice, Petitioner Karen K. Deklinski called Petitioners' insurance agent and was advised that the payment must have crossed in the mail and that he would contact the Department of Transportation to obtain proof of insurance coverage for Petitioners. 10 When such proof was not forthcoming, Petitioner Joseph A. Deklinski contacted the Department of Transportation and was advised that its records did not indicate that the vehicle's insurance was still in effect. 11 Petitioners immediately stopped driving the vehicle.12 On April 25, 2006, Petitioners received a notice dated April 20, 2006, from the Department advising that it had "recently" received information from Petitioners' insurance company of a 4 NT. 8. 5 NT. 8. 6 NT. 18. 7NT. 18, 19,23. 8 NT. 20. 9 NT. 9. Petitioner Karen K. Deklinski testified that the notice was sent either by the insurer or the Department, but the Department's records do not show that it came from the Department. NT. 9; Commonwealth's Ex. 1, Hearing, October 4, 2006 (hereinafter Commonwealth's/Petitioners' Ex. ~. 10 NT. 10. II NT. 10. 12 NT. 10. 2 cancellation of their automobile insurance. 13 The notice advised that the date of cancellation had been March 9, 2006.14 Petitioner Karen K. Deklinski hand-carried a replacement check to Petitioners' insurance agent the following day, April 26, 2006.15 The insurance coverage was reinstated by Allstate on April 29, 2006.16 On June 6, 2006, the Department sent a notice to Petitioners that the registration for their Saturn was being suspended for a period of three months, effective July 11, 2006, as a result of the insurance termination.17 On June 21, 2006, Petitioners' insurance agent sent a computer printout to the Department indicating that the effective termination date of Petitioners' insurance had been April 11, 2006.18 Whether the Department responded to this communication does not appear of record. From the Department's notice of suspension dated June 6, 2006, Petitioners filed a timely appeal to this court.19 At the hearing on the appeal, the Department presented evidence to support the suspension in the form of one exhibit, consisting of a certified copy of its records relating to Petitioners' vehicle?O The first item in the exhibit was the notice of suspension, dated June 6, 2006, from which Petitioners have appealed. The second item was a sort of docket printout generated by the Department, entitled "Suspension Inquiry Detail," listing the date of the suspension notice as "05/30/06," the effective date of the suspension as "07/11/06," the "determination date" as "03/09/06," and the basis for the suspension as a violation of "Section 13 NT. 11. 14 Commonwealth's Ex. 1. 15 NT. 11. 16 NT. 12. 17 Commonwealth's Ex. 1. 18 Petitioners' Ex. 1. 19 Petition for Review of Order of Department of Transportation Suspending Vehicle Registration, filed July 6, 2006. 20 Commonwealth's Ex. 1. 3 l786E" of the Vehicle Code.21 The third item was a computer printout generated by the Department entitled "Vehicle Inquiry Detail by Title," describing the vehicle in question.22 The fourth item was a copy of the notice dated April 20, 2006, sent by the Department to Petitioners, indicating the Department had "recently" received information that Petitioners' insurance had lapsed.23 The balance of the hearing was devoted to testimony of Petitioner Karen K. Deklinsky and exhibits in support of Petitioners' position as indicated above. The court found Ms. Deklinski's testimony entirely credible. At the conclusion of the hearing the court issued an order taking the matter under advisement and soliciting briefs on the issues presented. Briefs have now been received from counsel for Petitioners and the Department. DISCUSSION Section l786( d)( 1) of the Vehicle Code provides, III pertinent part, as follows: The Department of Transportation 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 . . . ?4 An exception to this requirement for suspension is provided for in Section l786( d)(2)(i) in a case where: [t]he owner or registrant proves to the satisfaction of the department 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. 25 An appeal from a suspension imposed by the Department arising out of a lapse of insurance coverage is permitted to the appropriate court of common 21 Commonwealth's Ex. 1. 22 Commonwealth's Ex. 1. 23 Commonwealth's Ex. 1. 24 Act ofPebruary 12, 1984, P.L. 26, ~3, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. ~1786(d)(l). 25 Act ofPebruary 12, 1984, P.L 26, ~3, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. ~1786(d)(2)(i). 4 pleas?6 The court's scope of review in such a case is 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 either notice to the department of a lapse, termination or cancellation in the financial responsibility coverage as required by law for that vehicle or that owner, registrant or driver was requested to provide proof of financial responsibility to the department, a police officer or another driver and failed to do so. Notice to the department of the lapse, termination or cancellation or the failure to provide the requested proof of financial responsibility shall create a presumption that the vehicle lacked the requisite financial responsibility. This presumption may be overcome by producing clear and convincing evidence that the vehicle was insured at all relevant times.27 On such an appeal, the Department does not have to show that the registrant received notice of the termination. Act of February 12, 1984, P.L. 26, 93, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. 9l786(e)(2). The Code further provides that "[a]n alleged lapse, cancellation or termination of a policy of insurance may only be challenged by requesting review by the Insurance Commissioner. . .." Act of February 12, 1984, P.L. 26, 93, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. 9l786(d)(5). In the present case, the factual issue( s) for determination by the court are not whether Petitioners' vehicle had been uncovered by insurance for some period, but ( a) when that period commenced, (b) whether it was less than thirty-one days, and (c) whether the vehicle had been driven during that period. The only evidence presented by the Commonwealth to support its position on the first issue was a docket-type notation reading "Determination Date: 03/09/06," a cryptic and undocumented reference. Given the balance of the evidence, the court is of the view that Petitioners' situation falls within the exception to suspension provided by the legislature, in that the period of non-coverage of Petitioners' vehicle was less than thirty-one days and that the vehicle was not driven during the period of non-coverage. 26 Act ofPebruary 12, 1984, P.L. 26, ~3, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. ~1786(d)(3). 27 Act ofPebruary 12, 1984, P.L. 26, ~3, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. ~1786(d)(3). 5 Accordingly, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2ih day of November, 2006, upon consideration of Petitioners' Petition for Review of Order of Department of Transportation Suspending Vehicle Registration, following a hearing held on October 4, 2006, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the Petitioners' appeal is sustained and the suspension of vehicle registration noticed by a mailing of the Department of Transportation on June 6, 2006, with respect to Petitioners' 2000 Saturn automobile is reversed. BY THE COURT, s/ 1. Wesley Oler, Jr. 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. Krista D. Teeter, Esq. George A. Michak, Esq. MICHAK, TEETER & LEWIS, LLC 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 100 Harrisburg, P A 17110 Attorneys for Petitioners George H. Kabusk, Esq. Assistant Counsel Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Vehicle & Traffic Law Division Riverfront Office Center, 3rd Floor 1101 South Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17104-2516 Attorney for Respondent 6 7 KAREN K. DEKLINSKI and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JOSEPH A. DEKLINSKI, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Petitioners v. : CIVIL ACTION-LAW COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent : No. 06-3835 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUSPENDING VEHICLE REGISTRATION BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2ih day of November, 2006, upon consideration of Petitioners' Petition for Review of Order of Department of Transportation Suspending Vehicle Registration, following a hearing held on October 4, 2006, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the Petitioners' appeal is sustained and the suspension of vehicle registration noticed by a mailing of the Department of Transportation on June 6, 2006, with respect to Petitioners' 2000 Saturn automobile is reversed. BY THE COURT, 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. Krista D. Teeter, Esq. George A. Michak, Esq. MICHAK, TEETER & LEWIS, LLC 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 100 Harrisburg, P A 17110 Attorneys for Petitioners George H. Kabusk, Esq. Assistant Counsel Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Vehicle & Traffic Law Division Riverfront Office Center, 3rd Floor 1101 South Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17104-2516 Attorney for Respondent