Here is the court ruling against me in the auto insurance dispute. Unlike the traffic court case, I don't think I could have done any better in this hearing.

The basic issue was fairly straightforward: When a (licensed) auto insurance company wants to terminate coverage, it can only be done if it's permitted by a law, dubbed "Act 68", that is short enough to fit on five standard sheets of paper.

The third section of Act 68 (section 2003) reads: "An insurer may not cancel or refuse to write or renew a policy of automobile insurance for any of the following reasons:". It then lists sex, race, religion and the other usual taboo grounds. It also prohibits cancellation/non-renewal for several other specific circumstances, such as an accident with an animal.

The fourth section of Act 68 (section 2004) then reads: "An insurer may not cancel a policy EXCEPT for one or more of the following specified reasons:" (emphasis added). The three reasons are non-payment of a premium, suspension or revocation of a driver license, or an applicant for insurance that provided inaccurate or fraudulent information to the insurance company. That's it.

Not having a license does not appear in either of these sections, but the wording of 2004 is clearly exclusive. Section 2003 is redundant in light of 2004. I.e. since not renewing a policy due to race is not permitted under 2004, it doesn't even need to be prohibited in 2003. In fact, 2003 could be deleted in it's entirety, and it wouldn't affect the force of Act 68 at all.

(Of course, I have no illusions about whether the legislature would hesitate to amend 2004 to include lack of license as a valid reason to cancel or non-renew, but the law is the law, and the intent of the law is found in it's wording. Judges are bound to rule according to the wording of the law. Any judge that "interprets" the law beyond the exact wording used in the law is illegally assuming legislative power).

When they said the case would be determined by whether Erie complied with Act 68, they really didn't mean that. They meant instead they'd check to see if the non-renewal was similar enough to non-renewal cases they've upheld in the past. The wording of Act 68 itself means nothing, which is evident since no portion of it was even quoted in the final decision (below), but judges from past cases were quoted. That illustrates well the loyalty of this judge.

Unfortunately case history is improperly used by judges to decide cases in virtually all areas of law. Anyone going into court will need to be prepared to deal with it, one way or the other.

Below is the complete decision. Highlights in yellow and notes in blue are my own emphasis and additions, and were not part of the original decision. I've also screened the signatures for privacy reasons.

Here are some new "Conclusions of Law" that will be treated as law even though none of it has been passed by the legislature. These "conclusions" will haunt people in the future that seek a ruling on Act 68, just as I was haunted by past court rulings that I knew nothing about.

Despite the loss, it was fun to take them on and learn from the experience.

Fortunately, this is only a paper defeat for me, as I now enjoy auto coverage through a private co-op organization.

Neil McIver

All information presented here is done so under the protection of the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and article I section 2 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, as established in the famous trial of William Penn in August 1670, and contrary to the unlawful instructions given by most American judges, in addition to judging the facts of a case, juries also have the right and duty to pass judgement on the law (meaning they may acquit a violator of the law if they believe the law in question is unconstitutional, immoral, just plain stupid, or if the penalty is deemed too harsh). Juries are also lawfully free to vote according to their conscience, above all other considerations.