In Stone v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 166 Pa. Commw. 643, 647 A.2d 287 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), the Court affirmed a trial court's order that affirmed DOT's suspension of operating privileges because there was no requirement in Section 1786 that DOT establish that the owner was at fault or that the owner intended to operate the vehicle without insurance. Id., 647 A.2d at 288-89. As in Slack, the owner in Stone argued that he failed to receive notice that his insurance coverage had lapsed. Id. at 288. Therefore, the owner argued that our Court should not find him in violation of Section 1786 because he did not intend to operate his vehicle without insurance. Id. Although this Court was sympathetic to the owner's dilemma that, as a truck driver, he would be unable to work without his license during the three-month suspension, the Court nonetheless determined that DOT was not required to show that the owner intended to operate the vehicle without insurance. Id. The Court, therefore, concluded that the owner had failed to rebut DOT's prima facie case. Id.