ORDERS:
ORDER
I. Statement of the Case
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §38-73-10, et seq., (1989 & Supp.
1994) and S.C. Code Ann. §§1-23-310, et seq. (1986 & Supp. 1994) upon a request for a
businessowners' property and casualty insurance premium rate increase. A hearing was
conducted on September 12, 1995. The request was not opposed by the Department of
Insurance. Upon review of the testimony and evidence submitted, the rate increase request is
approved.
II. Issues
Is Petitioners' request for a businessowners' property and casualty premium rate increase of 4.8%
excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory within the meaning of S.C. Code Ann.
§38-73-10(a)(1) (Supp. 1994)?
III. Analysis
1. Positions of Parties:
The South Carolina Department of Insurance does not oppose the rate increase requested. The
Hanover Insurance Company and Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company assert the rate increase
is not excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.
2. Findings of Fact:
I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, the following facts:
1. Petitioners submitted on June 12, 1995, to the South Carolina Department of Insurance a
formal filing for revision of its businessowners' property and casualty insurance premium rates.
2. The filing requested a rate increase of 4.8% for its businessowners' property and casualty
insurance premiums.
3. By notice dated July 24, 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 September 12, 1995.
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.
3. Discussion
The filing of a request for a rate change requires the Department of Insurance to determine if the
rate change is excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory within the meaning of S.C. Code
Ann. §38-73-10(a)(1) (Supp. 1994). In the instant case, the actuary for the Department of
Insurance reviewed the filing and found the rate increase was not excessive, inadequate, or
unfairly discriminatory. Further, no member of the public nor the Consumer Advocate entered
any opposition to the request for a rate increase. Accordingly, the amended request for a rate
increase is approved.
4. Conclusions of Law
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Discussion, I conclude, the following as a matter of
law:
1. The South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division is empowered to hear this case
pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §38-73-910 (1989) and Chapter 23 of Title I of the 1976 Code, as
amended.
2. In general, a request for an insurance rate increase is governed by S.C. Code Ann. §§38-73-10,
et seq. (1989 & Supp. 1994).
3. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §38-73-910 (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).
IV. ORDER
The insurance rate increase requested by Petitioners, The Hanover Insurance Company and
Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company, is approved with the premium rate increase of 4.8% for
businessowners' property and casualty insurance effective upon the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
This 12th day of September, 1995 |