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:
Hartford Fire Insurance Company, et al vs. SCDOI

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, Twin City Fire Insurance Company and Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Member Insurers of the ITT Hartford Insurance Group

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
95-ALJ-09-0212-CC

APPEARANCES:
James T. Paschal, for Petitioner

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.,

(Supp. 1994) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq. (1986 & Supp. 1994) upon a request for a commercial automobile property and casualty insurance expense component revision. A hearing was conducted August 2, 1995. The request was not contested by the South Carolina Department of Insurance or any member of the public. Upon review of the testimony and evidence submitted, the revision request is approved.

FINDINGS OF FACT

By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:

(1) Petitioners submitted on April 4, 1995, to the South Carolina Department of Insurance a formal filing for revision of its commercial automobile property and casualty insurance expense component factor used in formulating premiums, having an overall premium impact of -14.8%.

(2) By notice dated June 13, 1995, the public was advised that an application for a rate revision by Petitioners had been made and that a hearing would be held on August 2, 1995.

(3) The expense component is added by each member insurer to the commercial automobile pure loss component determined by ISO, a rating organization, and approved by the State, to establish Petitioners' premium rates.

(4) Although the overall impact upon premium rates is -14.8%, the component revision will cause a slight increase in some garage risk provisions.

(5) The South Carolina Department of Insurance conducted an independent investigation of the filing.

(6) The South Carolina Department of Insurance, through its Chief Casualty Actuary,

Mr. Martin M. Simons, testifying as an expert witness, represents that the rate increase request will produce rates that are not excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.

(7) The filing was not contested by the State Consumer Advocate or any member of the public.

(8) Petitioners' last approved rate increase was effective August, 1994.

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 (Supp. 1994) 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. (Supp. 1994).

(3) An "expense component" is that factor applicable to production costs, administrative costs, and profit margin in this State. S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-1400(2) (Supp. 1994).

(4) Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 38-73-1370, 1380, and 1400 (Supp. 1994), a revision in a insurance company's rating formula expense component is subject to a public hearing and must be approved before becoming effective.

(5) Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-910 (Supp. 1994), 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.

(6) Petitioners met the burden of proof in this revision request by establishing that the revised resulting 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 expense component revisions requested by Petitioners are approved. The effective date of the revisions is September 1, 1995.



___________________________________

STEPHEN P. BATES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

August ___, 1995

Columbia, South Carolina


 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2025 South Carolina Administrative Law Court