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:
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company vs. SCDOI

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

Intervenor:
Philip S. Porter, Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
00-ALJ-09-0573-CC

APPEARANCES:
James C. Gray, Jr., Esquire T. Douglas Concannon, Esquire
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough Associate General Counsel
Attorney for the Petitioner South Carolina Department of Insurance

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

ORDERS:

CONSENT ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1. On October 9, 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 Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company (the Company) requesting an approval of an overall increase of +11.9% in its homeowners insurance rates with some territories having a proposed increase of up to 22.8%.



2. On October 17, 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 Ray N. Stevens under the Dock No. 00-ALJ-09-0573-CC. Prehearing statements were due November 6, 2000. A hearing on the matter has been set for December 18, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.



4. Meanwhile, the Consumer Advocate retained a consulting actuary and requested additional information from the Company primarily consisting of more data for calculation of trends. Having considered the new information, the Consumer Advocate now comes to the conclusion that the rates requested by the Company satisfy the statutory criteria that the rates may not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. Even though the Consumer Advocate's actuary came with a rate indication lower than the Company's indication of 35.9%, his calculation was still above the requested overall rate change of 11.9%.













5. Based upon the foregoing, the Consumer Advocate 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.







RAY N. STEVENS

Administrative Law Judge



November 9th, 2000

Columbia, South Carolina



WE CONSENT:



James C. Gray, Jr., Esquire T. Douglas Concannon, Esquire

Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough Associate General Counsel

Attorney for the Petitioner South Carolina Department of Insurance

Post Office Box 11070 Post Office Box 100105

Columbia, SC 29211 Columbia, SC 29202-6160



Hana Pokorna-Williamson, Esquire

Staff Attorney

South Carolina Department of

Consumer Affairs

Post Office Box 5757

Columbia, SC 29250-5757


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court