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:
Northland Insurance Company vs. SCDOI, et al

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Northland Insurance Company

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance and Philip S. Porter, Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
00-ALJ-09-0088-CC

APPEARANCES:
Lisa Jo Heutmaker T. Douglas Concannon, Esquire
State Filings Administrator Associate General Counsel
Northland Insurance Company South Carolina Department

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 Northland Insurance Company (the Company) requesting an approval of an overall increase of +3.61% in its mobile homeowners insurance rates.



2. On February 22, 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 Honorable Ralph King Anderson, III under the Docket No. 00-ALJ-09-0088-CC. The hearing on the matter was scheduled for May 4, 2000 at 2:00 P.M.



4. An issue on which the Consumer Advocate and the Company disagree is the proper treatment of investment income in the making of rates. The Consumer Advocate believes that investment income is a relevant factor in fixing of rates, particularly, income from unearned premium reserve and loss reserve funds supplied by ratepayers and not yet fully earned by the insurer. The Company disagrees.



5. After taking other considerations into account, the Consumer Advocate has decided not to pursue this issue any further. In arriving at that decision, the Consumer Advocate considered the relatively small volume of business the Company does in South Carolina (approximately $2 million in annual earned premiums), the actual dollar difference between the analyses of the Consumer Advocate's actuary and the Company's numbers, as well as the need for continued availability of mobile homeowners insurance in South Carolina.



6. Based upon the foregoing, the Consumer Advocate now withdraws his original request for a hearing in this matter.



7. 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



May 3, 2000

Columbia, South Carolina





WE CONSENT:



_____________________________ ______________________________

Lisa Jo Heutmaker T. Douglas Concannon, Esquire

State Filings Administrator Associate General Counsel

Northland Insurance Company South Carolina Department

1295 Northland Drive of Insurance

St. Paul, MN 55120-1146 P.O. Box 100105

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