South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Auto-Owners Insurance Company vs. SCDOI, et al

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Auto-Owners Insurance Company

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance and Philip S. Porter, Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
00-ALJ-09-603-CC

APPEARANCES:
Jonathan R. Riekse, CPCU, ARM T. Douglas Concannon, Esquire
Manager, Personal Property Actuarial Dept. Associate General Counsel
Auto-Owners Insurance Company South Carolina Department

Hana Pokorna-Williamson, Esquire
Staff Attorney
South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs
 

ORDERS:

CONSENT ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1. On October 18, 2000, Philip S. Porter, Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina (the Consumer Advocate) requested the South Carolina Department of Insurance (the Department) to initiate a public hearing on the filing of Auto-Owners Insurance Company (the Company) requesting an approval of an overall increase of +2.5% in its dwelling fire insurance rates with some territories having a proposed increase of up to 3.8%.



2. On October 30, 2000, the Department filed with the Administrative Law Judge Division an Agency Transmittal Form requesting a public hearing.



3. The Administrative Law Judge Division assigned this matter to the Honorable Carolyn C. Matthews under the Docket No. 00-ALJ-09-0603-CC. Prehearing statements were due November 17, 2000. A hearing on the matter has not yet been set.



4. Meanwhile, the Consumer Advocate retained a consulting actuary and requested additional information from the Company primarily consisting of more data for calculation of investment income. Having considered the new information, the Consumer Advocate now comes to the conclusion that the rates requested by the Company satisfy the statutory criteria that the rates may not be excessive, inadequate, or infairly discriminatory. Even though the Consumer Advocate's actuary came with a rate indication lower than the Company's indication of 10.0%, his calculation was still above the requested overall rate change of 2.5%.



5. Based upon the foregoing, the Consumer Advocate now withdraws his original request for a hearing in this matter.



6. There are no unresolved issues remaining; therefore, all parties agree to the dismissal of this matter.



NOW, THEREFORE, the above referenced matter is dismissed.





IT IS SO ORDERED.



______________________________

CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE



December 5, 2000

Columbia, South Carolina





WE CONSENT:



_____________________________ ______________________________

Jonathan R. Riekse, CPCU, ARM T. Douglas Concannon, Esquire

Manager, Personal Property Actuarial Dept. Associate General Counsel

Auto-Owners Insurance Company South Carolina Department

Post Office Box 30660 of Insurance

Lansing, MI 48909-8160 P.O. Box 100105

Columbia, SC 29202-6160



_____________________________

Hana Pokorna-Williamson, Esquire

Staff Attorney

South Carolina Department of

Consumer Affairs

P.O. Box 5757

Columbia, SC 29250-5757


 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2025 South Carolina Administrative Law Court