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 vs. SCDOI

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Hartford Fire Insurance Company

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
96-ALJ-09-0075-CC

APPEARANCES:
Jim Paschal
Executive Commercial Account Representative
For Petitioner

S. Phillip Lenski, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent
 

ORDERS:

ORDER AND DECISION

This matter comes before this tribunal pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-10, et seq. (Supp. 1994) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310, et seq. (Supp. 1994) upon a request for a commercial multiple-peril property and casualty insurance premium rate change. A hearing was held on April 30, 1996. 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 request is approved.

FINDINGS OF FACT

By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:

1. On February 7, 1996, Petitioner submitted a formal filing for a commercial multiple-peril property and casualty insurance premium rate change to the South Carolina Department of Insurance, which has an overall premium impact of a 1.6% decrease from existing rates.

2. The public was advised that an application for a rate change by Petitioner had been made and that a hearing would be held on April 30, 1996.

3. The last insurance premium rate increase received by Petitioner for its commercial multiple-peril property and casualty insurance premium rate was on May 16, 1994.

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

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

6. The rate 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 (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. 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 thirty (30) days in advance of the hearing.

4. Petitioner established by the preponderance of the evidence that its requested rate change would not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. See S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-10(a)(1) (Supp. 1994).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the insurance premium rate change requested by Petitioner is approved and shall be effective any time after the date of this Order.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________

JOHN D. GEATHERS

Administrative Law Judge

Edgar A. Brown Building

1205 Pendleton Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201



April 30, 1996

Columbia, South Carolina


 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2025 South Carolina Administrative Law Court