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:
State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company vs. SCDOI, et al

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance and Philip S. Porter, Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
00-ALJ-09-0086-CC

APPEARANCES:
Matthew S. Mrozek, FCAS, MAAA T. Douglas Concannon, Esquire
Actuary Associate General Counsel

Hana Pokorna-Williamson, Esquire
Staff Attorney
South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs
 

ORDERS:

CONSENT ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1. On February 15, 2000, Philip S. Porter, Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina (the Consumer Advocate) requested the South Carolina Department of Insurance (the Department) to initiate a public hearing on the filing of State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company (the Company) requesting an approval of an overall decrease of -1.9% in its homeowners insurance rates with some territories receiving up to +5.5% increase.



2. On February 23, 2000, the Department filed with the Administrative Law Judge Division an Agency Transmittal Form requesting a public hearing.



3. The Administrative Law Judge Division assigned this matter to the Honorable Ralph King Anderson, III under the Docket No. 00-ALJ-09-0086-CC. The hearing on the matter has been scheduled for May 4, 2000, at 10:00 A.M.



4. Meanwhile, the Consumer Advocate requested additional information from the Company. Specifically, the Consumer Advocate was concerned that the Company's own numbers might have justified an overall decrease larger than that requested by the Company.



In response to the Consumer Advocate's concerns, the Company provided a history of its experience and past rate requests as well as an explanation of its policy regarding the stability of rates.





5. Based on that information, the Consumer Advocate now believes that the filing will result in rates that are not excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory, and now withdraws his original request for a hearing in this matter.



6. There are no unresolved issues remaining; therefore, all parties agree to the dismissal of this matter.



NOW, THEREFORE, the above referenced matter is dismissed.





IT IS SO ORDERED.





______________________________

RALPH KING ANDERSON, III

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE



April 19, 2000

Columbia, South Carolina





WE CONSENT:





_____________________________ ______________________________

Matthew S. Mrozek, FCAS, MAAA T. Douglas Concannon, Esquire

Actuary Associate General Counsel

State Auto Property and South Carolina Department

Casualty Insurance Company of Insurance

518 East Broad Street P.O. Box 100105

Columbus, OH 43215-3976 Columbia, SC 29202-6160



_____________________________

Hana Pokorna-Williamson, Esquire

Staff Attorney

South Carolina Department of

Consumer Affairs

P.O. Box 5757

Columbia, SC 29250-5757


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court