IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Robert J. Brizgint : : v. : No. 622 C.D. 2014 : Submitted: October 17, 2014 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Transportation, : Bureau of Motor Vehicles, : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE COLINS FILED: December 23, 2014 The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation (Department), Bureau of Motor Vehicles (Bureau) appeals from the April 7, 2014 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County (trial court) sustaining the statutory appeal filed by Robert J. Brizgint (Brizgint) 1 from a three-month suspension of his vehicle registration imposed by the Bureau pursuant to Section 1786(d) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. 1786(d). 2 We reverse. 1 By order dated October 10, 2014, Brizgint was precluded from filing a brief in this matter after failing to comply with this Court s September 15, 2014 order directing him to do so within 14 days. 2 Section 1786(d)(1) provides: 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 and shall suspend the operating privilege of the owner or registrant for a period of three months if the department determines that the (Footnote continued on next page )
Geico Indemnity Company (GEICO) cancelled a policy of liability insurance for Brizgint s 2004 Jeep station wagon on January 1, 2014, due to nonpayment of the premium, and reported the termination of coverage to the Bureau. In a letter dated January 11, 2014, the Bureau informed Brizgint that it had received notice of the cancellation and requested updated information regarding the status of his insurance. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 30a-32a.) Thereafter, by notice mailed February 27, 2014, the Bureau advised Brizgint that, as a consequence of his failure to maintain financial responsibility, the registration of his vehicle was being suspended for a period of three months, effective April 3, 2014, pursuant to section 1786(d) of the Vehicle Code. (R.R. at 26a.) Brizgint filed a statutory appeal with the trial court, which held a de novo hearing on April 7, 2014. On appeal from a vehicle registration suspension, the Bureau has the initial burden of proving that the vehicle in question is of a type required to be registered in the Commonwealth and that the required automobile liability insurance has been cancelled or otherwise terminated. Pray v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 708 A.2d 1315, 1316 n. 2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). Once the Bureau establishes its prima facie case, the burden shifts to the registrant to prove that he or she meets one of the exceptions provided in Section 1876(d)(2) of the Vehicle Code. Id. The Bureau presented properly certified documents reflecting that the insurance on Brizgint s vehicle had been cancelled on January 1, 2014. Brizgint (continued ) owner or registrant has operated or permitted the operation of the vehicle without the required financial responsibility 75 Pa. C.S. 1786(d)(1) (emphasis added). 2
admitted that his insurance had been terminated on that date. He testified however, that he accesses his Social Security disability payments via a card, and although the disability payment funds were deposited by the government into his account on January 31, 2014, he was unable to access those funds to pay for the insurance until a replacement card he had ordered arrived, late, on February 7, 2014. 3 (R.R. at 20a-21a.) Consequently, Brizgint testified, his new insurance did not become effective until 38 or 39 days after the date his insurance had been cancelled. 4 (R.R. at 21a.) Brizgint stated further that he did not drive his car at all during the time when it was uninsured. (R.R. at 22a.) suspension, noting that: At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court reversed the license [Brizgint] was very honest in his testimony, and I feel because of the card situation, where the money was coming from the government, he could not access his funds, I am going to gran[t] this appeal. (R.R. at 22a.) In its opinion filed pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a), the trial court noted that although it was clear that the lapse in insurance coverage exceeded 30 days, 5 the lapse was not caused by Brizgint s 3 Brizgint did not clarify, and the record contains no additional information as to what type of card Brizgint used. Brizgint stated only they told us because of Michael s and Target who had the identity fraud thing where all these card numbers were stolen, I guess they were sending out mass amounts of cards. They told us our card would be coming in five calendar days, and that was on the 14 th when we had ordered it, and come the 30 th it still had not come. I even spent $20 for them to expedite a card overnight, and that still took three days when they said it would have come overnight. (R.R. at 21a-22a.) 4 The effective date of Brizgint s new insurance policy was February 8, 2014. (R.R. at 14a.) 5 Section 1786(d)(2)(i) of the Vehicle Code provides an exception to suspension where the owner or registrant proves to the satisfaction of the department that the lapse in financial responsibility (Footnote continued on next page ) 3
intentional act; the trial court stated that Brizgint did not receive the card in a timely manner due to a breakdown of a governmental function and it would be inequitable to punish [Brizgint] for failing to have the required financial responsibility on his [vehicle] when the failure was through no fault of his own. (trial court Opinion, R.R. at 48a-49a.) On appeal to this Court, 6 the Bureau argues that although Brizgint s vehicle was not operated during the period of the lapse in his insurance, he could not satisfy the statutory exception to suspension. Moreover, the Bureau argues, Brizgint had the option of avoiding the suspension altogether by affording himself of the remedy created by the legislature to avoid suspension, set forth in Section 1786(g)(2) of the Vehicle Code, 7 and could have sent in his registration card and (continued ) 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 of financial responsibility. 75 Pa. C.S. 1786(d)(2)(i). 6 The Court s scope of review is limited to determining whether the trial court s findings are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. Greenfield v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 67 A.3d 198, 200 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). 7 This provision provides, in pertinent part: (g) Defenses.- - - - (2) No person shall be penalized for maintaining a registered motor vehicle without financial responsibility under subsection (d) if, at the time insurance coverage terminated or financial responsibility lapsed, the registration plate and card were voluntarily surrendered to the department, a full agent designated by the department to accept voluntarily surrendered registration plates and cards pursuant to regulations promulgated by the department or a decentralized service agent appointed by the department 75 Pa. C.S. 1786(g)(2). 4
vehicle plate to the Department until he was able to make payment for his new insurance policy. The trial court entered an order sustaining Brizgint s appeal despite the 38-day lapse and the absence of any statutory defense to the Bureau s registration suspension. The Vehicle Code expressly limits the discretion of the trial court. 8 This Court has consistently held that the statutory scheme is clear and does not allow the trial court to resort to an equitable remedy. Greenfield v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 67 A.3d 198, 200 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013); Banks v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 856 A.2d 294, 296 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). We are constrained therefore to reverse the trial court s order and reinstate Brizgint s three-month registration suspension. JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge 8 Section 1786(d)(3) provides: 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 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 the 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 75 Pa. C.S. 1786(d)(3) (emphasis added). 5
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Robert J. Brizgint : : v. : No. 622 C.D. 2014 : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Transportation, : Bureau of Motor Vehicles, : Appellant : O R D E R AND NOW, this 23 rd day of December, 2014, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County in the above-captioned matter is hereby REVERSED. JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge