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:
Horace Mann Insurance Company vs. SCDOI, et al

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Horace Mann Insurance Company

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance and Philip S. Porter, as Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
01-ALJ-09-0314-CC

APPEARANCES:
Sara Dillavou, CPCU, FLMI T. Douglas Concannon, Esquire
Senior Regulatory Analyst Associate General Counsel
Horace Mann 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 July 9, 2001, 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 Horace Mann Insurance Company (the Company) requesting an approval of an overall increase of +12.1% in its homeowners property and casualty insurance premium rates.
 

2. On July 23, 2001, 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 C. Dukes Scott under the Docket No. 01-ALJ-09-0314-CC. A hearing on the matter has not yet been set.
 

4. Meanwhile, the Consumer Advocate retained a consulting actuary and requested additional information from the Company concerning primarily two issues. First, the Consumer Advocate requested additional actuarial information justifying the level of increase requested. Second, he expressed concerns in connection with introduction of credit scoring as a factor in determination of premiums to be charged to a consumer.
 

5. Having reviewed and discussed with the Company the requested actuarial information, the Consumer Advocate now believes that the requested level of an overall rate increase is actuarially justified.

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

7. The Consumer Advocate's decision to withdraw his request for hearing on the Company's application is by no means understood as an endorsement by the Consumer Advocate of the credit scoring program as a whole or any part thereof.
 

8. 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.
 

______________________________

C. DUKES SCOTT

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 

October 2, 2001

Columbia, South Carolina
 
 
 

WE CONSENT:
 

_____________________________ ______________________________

Sara Dillavou, CPCU, FLMI T. Douglas Concannon, Esquire

Senior Regulatory Analyst Associate General Counsel

Horace Mann Insurance Company South Carolina Department

One Horace Mann Plaza of Insurance

Springfield, IL 62715-0001 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