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:
Companion Property & Casualty Insurance Company vs. SCDOI, et al

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Companion Property & 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-09-0602-CC

APPEARANCES:
John W. Davidson, Esquire
Attorney for the Petitioner

T. Douglas Concannon, Esquire
Attorney for the Department

Hana Pokorna-Williamson, Esquire
Attorney for the Consumer Advocate
 

ORDERS:

CONSENT ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
  • On October 18, 2000, Philip S. Porter, Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina (Advocate) requested the South Carolina Department of Insurance (Department) to initiate a public hearing on the filing of Companion Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Company) requesting an approval of an overall increase of +10.0% in its condominium property and casualty insurance premium rates.


  • On October 26, 2000, the Department filed with the Administrative Law Judge Division an Agency Transmittal Form requesting a public hearing.


  • The Administrative Law Judge Division assigned this matter to the Honorable Carolyn C. Matthews under the Docket No. 00-ALJ-09-0602-CC. Prehearing Statements were due November 17, 2001. The Consumer Advocate notified the office of the Honorable Carolyn C. Matthews that more information was needed in order to complete his review of the filing. A hearing on this matter has not yet been set.


  • Meanwhile, the consumer advocate retained a consulting actuary and requested additional information from the Company primarily consisting of information regarding expenses and profits and rate level calculation for the program, including justification for all factors and trends used in the rate level calculation.


  • Having reviewed the requested information, the Consumer Advocate still believes that the ratemaking methodology utilized in the filing is not proper. In particular, the Consumer Advocate is of the opinion that the amount of the new reinsurance cost alone cannot justify the rate level requested by the company. However, taking into account that fact that, first, this line of insurance is utilized to insure rental condominium units along the coast, which is an area experiencing insurance availability problems; second, that the program also provides a rare flood coverage; and third, that the Company has not requested an overall rate increase for this line of insurance since 1994, the Consumer Advocate in his discretion no longer opposes the Petitioners' rate request.


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


  • 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.





____________________________________

CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS

Administrative Law Judge





January 31, 2001

Columbia, South Carolina





WE CONSENT:



John W. Davidson, Esquire

Attorney for the Petitioner



T. Douglas Concannon, Esquire

Attorney for the Department



Hana Pokorna-Williamson, Esquire

Attorney for the Consumer Advocate


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court