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 |