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

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

Intervenor:
Philip S. Porter, as Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
02-ALJ-09-0021-CC

APPEARANCES:
Mark Denny T. Douglas Concannon, Esquire
Actuarial Analyst Associate General Counsel
State Auto Property & Casualty South Carolina Department

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

ORDERS:

CONSENT ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
  • On January 7, 2002, 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 & Casualty Insurance Company (the Company) requesting an approval of an overall increase of +3.9% in its homeowners property and casualty insurance premium rates.
  • On January 14, 2002, 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 Marvin F. Kittrell under the Docket No. 02-ALJ-09-0021-CC. Prehearing statements were due February 14, 2002. On February 12, 2002, the Consumer Advocate notified the office of the Honorable Marvin F. Kittrell that all the issues between him and the Company have been resolved. A hearing date on the matter has not yet been set.
  • In January, 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 various factors and trends used in the rate level calculation.
  • Having reviewed the requested information, it still appeared to the Consumer Advocate that there was a disparity between expenses and profit provisions, which potentially would indicate a rate decrease rather than a rate increase. However, in a further response dated February 11, 2002, the Company explained that the apparent disparity came from an internal management fee agreement with other members of State Auto Group. These fees appear as "income" in the State Auto Property & Casualty Ins. Co.'s (the Petitioner in this case) statements, but they appear as "expenses" for the other members of the State Auto Group. Overall, no additional income is realized on a Group basis because offsetting amounts are recorded as expenses within the Other Acquisition, Loss Adjustment, and Investment Expense categories. Based on this explanation, which was not included in the original filing, the Consumer Advocate no longer opposes the Petitioner's 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.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.





__________________________________

MARVIN F. KITTRELL

Chief Administrative Law Judge



March 6, 2002

Columbia, South Carolina





WE CONSENT:





____________________________ ____________________________

Mark Denny T. Douglas Concannon, Esquire

Actuarial Analyst Associate General Counsel

State Auto Property & Casualty South Carolina Department

Insurance Company of Insurance

518 East Broad Street P.O. Box 100105

Columbus, OH 43216 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