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, et al vs. SCDOI

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Auto Owners Insurance Company and Owners Insurance Company, Member Insurers of the Auto Owners Group

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
94-ALJ-09-0401-CC

APPEARANCES:
Wayne Davies and Tom Marshall, for Petitioners

Lee P. Jedziniak, Attorney for Respondent
 

ORDERS:

ORDER AND DECISION

This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-10, et seq.,

(Rev. 1989 & Supp. 1994) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq. (Rev. 1986 & Supp. 1994) upon a request for a property and casualty commercial multiple peril insurance premium rate increase. A hearing was conducted on April 19, 1995. The request was not contested by the Department of Insurance or any member of the public. Upon review of the testimony and evidence submitted, the rate increase request is approved.

FINDINGS OF FACT

By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:

(1) Petitioners submitted on December 2, 1994 (amended January 31, 1995 and April 4, 1995) to the South Carolina Department of Insurance a formal filing for revision of property and casualty commercial multiple peril insurance rule and premium rates, having an overall premium increase impact of 3.1%.

(2) By notice dated February 28, 1995, and published in several newspapers of general circulation throughout the State thirty (30) or more days in advance of the hearing, the public was advised that an application for a rate increase by Petitioners had been made and that a hearing would be held on April 19, 1995.

(3) The filing includes miscellaneous revisions to the package modification factors for tailored protection (commercial multiple peril) policies.

(4) The Department of Insurance conducted an independent investigation of the filing.

(5) The Department of Insurance, through its Chief Casualty Actuary, Mr. Martin M. Simons, testifying as an expert witness, represents that the rate increase request, as amended, will produce rates that are not excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.

(6) The rate increase request was not contested by the State Consumer Advocate or any member of the public.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:

(1) The South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division is empowered to hear this case pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-910 (Rev. 1989) and Chapter 23 of Title I of the 1976 Code, as amended.

(2) Generally, a request for an insurance rate increase is governed by S.C. Code Ann. §§ 38-73-10, et seq. (Rev. 1989 & Supp. 1994).

(3) Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-910 (Rev. 1989), notice of the filing and of the public hearing was given in all newspapers of statewide circulation at least 30 days in advance of the hearing.

(4) Petitioners met the burden of proof in a rate increase request by establishing that the revised rates would not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. See, S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-10(a)(1) (Supp. 1994).

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the insurance rate increase requested by Petitioners is approved. The approved revisions are not to be effective prior to the date of this Order.



___________________________________

STEPHEN P. BATES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

April 28, 1995

Columbia, South Carolina


 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2025 South Carolina Administrative Law Court