ORDERS:
ORDER
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §38-73-10 et. seq. (Law. Co-op. Supp.
1993) and S.C. Code Ann. §§123-310, et. seq. (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1993) on Petitioners' request
for an increase in its Private Passenger Automobile loss costs.
STATEMENT OF CASE
On June 1, 1995, Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) made a filing with the Chief Insurance
Commissioner requesting approval of an overall increase of +6.4% in its Private Passenger
Automobile loss costs with supporting material (ISO filing PP 95BRLA1).
The hearing in this matter was held before me on October 30, 1995.
Present at the hearing were Lester H. Hammond, III, Assistant Regional Manager of Insurance
Services Office, Inc. and Mr. James Gray, Esq. representing Insurance Services Office, Inc.; Mr.
Martin M. Simons, Chief Casualty Actuary, South Carolina Insurance Department; Mr. Lee P.
Jedziniak, Director of Insurance, representing the South Carolina Department of Insurance; and,
Ms. Hana Pokorna-Williamson, Staff Attorney, South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs.
From testimony, exhibits and arguments presented at the hearing, I find and conclude as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony, evidence and arguments presented at the hearing in this
matter, by a preponderance of the evidence I find as to the requested revision in Private Passenger
Automobile loss coasts:
1. Respondent published notice advising the public that an application for a rate increase by
Petitioners had been made and that a hearing would be held on October 30, 1995, in The State,
The Greenville News, The Post and Courier, and The Darlington Press.
2. That, the filer's overall indicated advisory loss cost level change was an increase of +6.4% was
filed.
3. That, the filer's most recent loss cost level change was an overall increase of -0.1% effective on
June 1, 1995.
4. That as filed, the filer's proposed statewide advisory loss cost level changes were:
| Coverages |
|
|
|
|
Indicated |
Filed |
| Single Limit Liability |
|
|
|
+ 6.4% |
+ 6.4% |
| Bodily Injury |
|
|
|
|
+ 2.4% |
+ 2.4% |
| Property Damage |
|
|
|
+17.6% |
+17.6% |
| Personal Injury Protection |
|
|
-24.5% |
-24.5% |
| Uninsured Motorists (T/L BI + B/L PD) |
-16.7% |
-16.7% |
| Underinsured Motorists (T/L BI + B/L PD) |
+26.8% |
+26.8% |
|
Liability Sub-Total |
|
|
+ 6.1% |
+ 6.1% |
| Comprehensive |
|
|
|
+18.8% |
+18.8% |
| Collision |
|
|
|
|
+ 1.2% |
+ 1.2% |
|
Physical Damage Sub-Total |
|
+ 7.6% |
+ 7.6% |
| Total |
|
|
|
|
|
+ 6.4% |
+ 6.4% |
5. That, as a result of informed discovery and negotiations and in agreement with the Respondent
and Intervenor, the Petitioner's proposed loss cost level change was amended at the hearing as
follows resulting in an overall change for the Private Passenger Automobile loss costs of +2.2%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amended Loss Cost |
| Coverages |
|
|
|
|
Level Changes |
| Single Limit Liability |
|
|
|
3.4% |
| Bodily Injury |
|
|
|
|
1.1% |
| Property Damage |
|
|
|
10.0% |
| Personal Injury Protection |
|
|
-33.3% |
| Uninsured Motorists (T/L BI _ B/L PD) |
-16.7% |
| Underinsured Motorists (T/L BK + B/L PD) |
10.0% |
|
Liability Sub-Total |
|
|
1.7% |
| Comprehensive |
|
|
|
10.0% |
| Collision |
|
|
|
|
1.2% |
|
Physical Damage Sub-Total |
|
4.4% |
| Total |
|
|
|
|
|
2.2% |
6. That, the revision of the loss costs as presented above is appropriate.
7. That, the filer's proposed effective date will be June 1, 1996.
8. That, the Chief Casualty Actuary has reviewed this filing and the amendment thereto submitted
at the hearing, and has determined that the requested loss cost revision, when used by the ISO
member and subscriber companies, would produce rates that are not excessive, inadequate or
unfairly discriminatory.
9. That, the Consumer Advocate, on behalf of the people of South Carolina and the South
Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs, has also reviewed this filing, and the amendment
thereto submitted at the hearing, and has also determined that the requested loss cost revision,
when used by the ISO member and subscriber companies, would produce rates that are not
excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.
10. That, based on these facts, the Insurance Department and the Consumer Advocate's Office do
not oppose the overall loss cost level changes set forth in Paragraph 5 and request that these
changes be approved.
11. ISO, as the filer, submitted the pre-filed expert testimony of Beth Fitzgerald. By stipulation of
the parties on the record, this testimony was admitted without objections. She testified that the
requested revisions would produce rates that are not excessive, inadequate or unfairly
discriminatory.
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 (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1993) and Chapter 23 of Title I of
the South Carolina Code of Laws, as amended.
2. Generally, a request for an insurance rate increase is governed by S.C. Code Ann. §§38-73-10
et. seq. (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1993).
3. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §38-73-910 (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1993), 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. Petitioner met the burden of proof in a rate increase request by establishing that the revised
rates would not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. S.C. Code Ann.
§38-73-10(a)(1) (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1993).
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the proposed loss costs
and other changes requested by Petitioner is approved with an effective date of June 1, 1996.
This _____ day of ___________, 1995
________________________________________
MARVIN F. KITTRELL
Chief Judge
Columbia, South Carolina |