A. Crain v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles ( 2023 )

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