Court Opinion

ID: 9635837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:07:38.122097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:29:31.309783
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alissa Crain                                 :
                                             :
                 v.                          : No. 706 C.D. 2022
                                             : Submitted: May 12, 2023
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,                :
Department of Transportation,                :
Bureau of Motor Vehicles,                    :
                                             :
                              Appellant      :

BEFORE:        HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
               HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
               HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WOJCIK                                 FILED: August 22, 2023

               The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles (DOT)
appeals the order of the Bradford County Court of Common Pleas (trial court)
sustaining the statutory appeal of Alissa Crain (Licensee) from the three-month
suspension of her vehicle registration pursuant to Section 1786(d)(1) of the Vehicle
Code1 for failure to maintain the required financial responsibility. We reverse.

       1
          75 Pa. C.S. §1786(d)(1). Section 1786(a) of the Vehicle Code mandates that “[e]very
motor vehicle of the type required to be registered under this title which is operated or currently
registered shall be covered by financial responsibility.” 75 Pa. C.S. §1786(a). Section 1786(d)(1)
provides for the suspension of registration and operating privilege for the failure to maintain the
required financial responsibility stating, in pertinent part:

(Footnote continued on next page…)
              Licensee is the registered owner of a 2002 Toyota station wagon, title
number 84077461 (vehicle), which was insured by Esurance Property and Casualty
Insurance Company (Esurance). By letter mailed February 16, 2022, DOT notified
Licensee that it had received information from Esurance that the insurance policy
covering her vehicle was cancelled on January 15, 2022. The letter requested that
Licensee provide verification of insurance coverage on the vehicle or her vehicle
registration would be suspended for three months. Licensee failed to provide the
requested information and by Official Notice mailed April 9, 2022, DOT informed
Licensee that the registration for the vehicle would be suspended for three months
effective May 14, 2022, as authorized by Section 1786(d)(1) of the Vehicle Code.
Licensee appealed the suspension to the trial court.
              At the hearing before the trial court, DOT offered into evidence the
following documents in support of its position that Licensee failed to maintain the
required financial responsibility on her vehicle: (1) DOT’s initial letter to Licensee
mailed February 16, 2022; (2) the Official Notice of the suspension mailed April 9,
2022; (3) electronic transmission received from Esurance certifying the termination
of Licensee’s insurance on January 15, 2022; (4) DOT’s computer printout of the
vehicle’s details indicating the required financial responsibility was terminated at
Licensee’s request; and (5) the certification of Stephen J. Madrak, Director of the

              [DOT] 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 and shall suspend the
              operating privilege of the owner or registrant for a period of three
              months if [DOT] determines that the owner or registrant has
              operated or permitted the operation of the vehicle without the
              required financial responsibility.

75 Pa. C.S. §1786(d)(1).
                                               2
Bureau of Motor Vehicles, certifying that all of DOT’s submitted documents were
true and correct. See Reproduced Record (RR) at 29a-36a.
             In response, Licensee testified, in relevant part:

             Okay, so the [] teenager that I’m in charge of, I’m the
             guardian of, he needs a lot more driving experience. So, I
             did not feel comfortable with having him drive in the
             winter time. He is on a learner’s permit. So I called
             Esurance, car insurance, on January 15th and I specifically
             asked them if it was okay if I put the insurance on hold
             because it was, it’s $800.00 for him to have car insurance
             on this car and being a single parent I did not have the
             money to pay for that and the car wasn’t being driven
             anyway, and neither was he. So, they told me that that
             was, I was able to do that, and there w[ere] no restrictions,
             I had no problems. Um, I didn’t have to do anything, they
             would just put it on hold in the system. So, they put it on
             hold and then in April[,] I received this letter from [DOT]
             saying that I would either have to send in the plates, pay a
             five hundred dollar fine, or appeal it. Appeal the
             registration suspension. So I’m appealing it. [H]ad
             Esurance told me you are not allowed to have a car sit in
             your driveway with no insurance with plates on, I
             obviously would not have done that. I do not have
             anything on my record showing that I’m a bad person, I
             have no fines, I’ve not been in the court system. [] I
             literally wouldn’t have done that. So this is truly an honest
             mistake[, a]nd I would like it to just be thrown out and be
             a lesson learned.
RR at 22a-23a. Licensee also testified that she did not receive DOT’s initial
February 16, 2022 letter notifying her that it had received information from Esurance
that there was a lapse in the required financial responsibility, and that she reinstated
the insurance on the vehicle on April 6, 2022. See id. at 21a, 26a-27a.
             On June 7, 2022, the trial court filed an order granting Licensee’s
appeal, and vacating DOT’s registration suspension, because Licensee did not
receive DOT’s February 16, 2022 letter notifying her that it had received information

                                           3
from Esurance that there was a lapse in the required financial responsibility. See RR
at 37a.2 DOT then filed this appeal of the trial court’s order.3

       2
           In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion filed in support of its order, the trial court explained:

                          The appeal was granted based on my mistaken belief that the
                 letter dated February 16, 2022, which [Licensee] did not receive,
                 was intended to provide her with information and an opportunity to
                 cure her “honest mistake.” Specifically, I had the impression that
                 the initial letter, which advised [Licensee] of the law that allows for
                 an owner to avoid suspension if “the lapse in financial responsibility
                 coverage was for a period of less than 31 days and the owner or
                 registrant did not operate . . . the vehicle during the period of lapse,”
                 was an advance notice of a potential violation. See [Section
                 1786(d)(2) of the Vehicle Code,] 75 Pa. C.S. §1786(d)(2); [DOT’s]
                 letter dated February 16, 2022 (Registration will not be suspended
                 “[i]f you obtained valid insurance within 30 days from when your
                 previous insurance was cancelled; . . . [and] [i]f you did not operate
                 the vehicle [during the lapse).]”

                         Upon closer view, such letter was not even sent until thirty
                 (30) days had passed since the alleged cancellation. Accordingly,
                 despite the potential equity in affording drivers an opportunity to
                 obtain insurance within the thirty (30)[-]day grace period the law
                 allows, and despite that prompt notice by [DOT] to drivers whose
                 insurance has been cancelled would likely be a responsible step to
                 try to keep uninsured drivers off the road, [DOT’s] letter, sent two
                 days beyond the grace period, could have no such positive impact.
                 Rather, [DOT], for whatever reason, waited until 32 days after the
                 alleged date of cancellation to advise [Licensee] of her options. At
                 that point, the 30-day grace period having lapsed, there was nothing
                 she could do to correct her “honest mistake,” even though the car
                 had not been driven.

                         Accordingly, to the extent th[is] Court can determine from
                 the record evidence that [DOT] met its burden, then [DOT’s] appeal
                 should be granted, and the suspension reinstated. If the record
                 evidence is insufficient, then the appeal should be denied.

RR at 53a-54a (emphasis in original and footnote omitted).
(Footnote continued on next page…)
                                                    4
                 On appeal, DOT claims4 that the trial court erred in vacating Licensee’s
registration suspension because it demonstrated that a lapse of the required financial
responsibility on the vehicle had occurred, and it is irrelevant that she did not receive
its February 16, 2022 letter warning her of the impending registration suspension for
that lapse in coverage. We agree.
                 In a registration suspension case under Section 1786(d)(1) of the
Vehicle Code, DOT bears the initial burden of proving that a lapse in the required
financial responsibility has occurred. Specifically, Section 1786(d)(3) states:

                 The court’s scope of review in an appeal from a vehicle
                 registration suspension shall be 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 [DOT] of a lapse,
                 termination or cancellation in the financial responsibility
                 coverage as required by law for that vehicle. . . . Notice to
                 [DOT] 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.
75 Pa. C.S. §1786(d)(3). In addition, Section 1377(b)(2) provides that “[DOT’s]
certification of its receipt of documents or electronic transmission from an insurance

       3
        Our review of the trial court’s order sustaining Licensee’s appeal is limited to determining
whether the trial court committed a reversible error or abused its discretion and whether the
necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Deklinski v. Department of
Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 938 A.2d 1191, 1194 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

       4
           Licensee has been precluded from filing an appellate brief in this matter.
                                                  5
company informing [DOT] that the person’s coverage has lapsed, been canceled or
terminated shall also constitute prima facie proof” of a lapse in coverage. 75 Pa. C.S.
§1377(b)(2); accord Deklinski, 938 A.2d at 1194 (citing Fagan v. Department of
Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 875 A.2d 1195, 1198 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2005)).
               DOT’s certification of the electronic transmission received from
Esurance stating that Licensee’s coverage was terminated at her request established
its prima facie case, creating a presumption that Licensee lacked the necessary
financial responsibility.       The burden then shifted to Licensee to rebut this
presumption “by presenting clear and convincing evidence of record ‘that financial
responsibility was continuously maintained on the vehicle . . . or that [she] fits within
one of the three statutorily defined defenses outlined in Section 1786(d)(2)(i)-(iii).’”
Deklinski, 938 A.2d at 1194 (quoting Fell v. Department of Transportation, Bureau
of Motor Vehicles, 925 A.2d 232, 237-38 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007)).
               Licensee admitted that she did not continuously maintain financial
responsibility on the vehicle because it was terminated on January 15, 2022, at her
request, and she did not reinstate the insurance until April 6, 2022, three days before
DOT mailed her the Official Notice of the registration suspension. See RR at 22a-
23a, 26a-27a. To sustain her appeal, Licensee had to provide clear and convincing
evidence5 that she fits one of the statutory exceptions. Section 1786(d)(2)(i)-(iii) of
the Vehicle Code outlines these exceptions stating, in relevant part:

               This subsection shall not apply in the following
               circumstances:

       5
          Clear and convincing evidence “is defined as testimony 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.” Fagan, 875 A.2d at 1199 (citations omitted).
                                                6
                (i) The 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.

                (ii) The owner or registrant is a member of the armed
                services of the United States, the owner or registrant has
                previously had the financial responsibility required by this
                chapter, financial responsibility had lapsed while the
                owner or registrant was on temporary, emergency duty and
                the vehicle was not operated during the period of lapse in
                financial responsibility. . . .

                (iii) The insurance coverage has terminated or financial
                responsibility has lapsed simultaneously with or
                subsequent to expiration of a seasonal registration, as
                provided in [S]ection 1307(a.1) (relating to period of
                registration).
75 Pa. C.S. §1786(d)(2)(i)-(iii) (emphasis added).
                Licensee admitted that her insurance coverage lapsed from January 15,
2022, through April 6, 2022. Because this lapse was more than 31 days, she does
not fit the first exception regardless of the fact that she testified that the vehicle was
not driven during that period of time. In addition, the record is devoid of any
evidence that Licensee was a member of the armed services, or that she maintained
only a seasonal registration on the vehicle under Section 1307(a.1) of the Vehicle
Code.6 As a result, Licensee does not meet either of the two remaining exceptions.

      6
          75 Pa. C.S. §1307(a.1). Section 1307(a.1) states, in pertinent part:

                Upon application on a form prescribed by [DOT], the owner or
                lessee of a passenger car . . . which does not have a gross vehicle
                weight rating of more than 14,000 pounds may register the vehicle
                with [DOT] for a period of successive months of less than one year.
                The applicant shall specify the period of months during which the
                vehicle shall be registered.
                                                 7
Because Licensee did not sustain her burden of proof, or demonstrate that she falls
into one of the exceptions in Section 1786(d)(2) of the Vehicle Code, the trial court
erred in sustaining her appeal and vacating the registration suspension imposed
under Section 1786(d)(1).7
               Accordingly, the trial court’s order is reversed and DOT’s three-month
registration suspension is reinstated.

                                             MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

       7
         Licensee’s ignorance of the consequences for failing to maintain financial responsibility
is simply not a defense to the instant registration suspension. See, e.g., Department of
Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Sloane Toyota, Inc., 558 A.2d 585, 587 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1989) (“The activity in question did not concern inadvertent recording or misfiling of
information, but instead concerned [the certificant’s] ignorance or lack of knowledge of state
regulations regarding the certification of emission inspection stations. Under [the relevant
regulation,] we conclude that [the certificant] must be held liable for 155 separate violations of
furnishing and receiving certificates.”).
                                                8
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alissa Crain                           :
                                       :
                v.                     : No. 706 C.D. 2022
                                       :
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,          :
Department of Transportation,          :
Bureau of Motor Vehicles,              :
                                       :
                          Appellant    :

                                      ORDER

               AND NOW, this 22nd day of August, 2023, the order of the Bradford
County Court of Common Pleas dated June 1, 2022, is REVERSED.

                                       __________________________________
                                       MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge