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 Farm Fire and Casualty Company vs. SCDOI

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

Intervenors:
Philip S. Porter, Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina, Keith Hays and Brenda Hays
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
02-ALJ-09-0118-CC

APPEARANCES:
James C. Gray, Jr.
William C. Wood, Jr.
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P.

Richard Bates
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

T. Douglas Concannon
Associate General Counsel

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

Attorney for Phillip S. Porter, Esq., Consumer Advocate for the
State of South Carolina, Intervenor/Respondent
 

ORDERS:

CONSENT ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1. On March 25, 2002, Philip S. Porter, Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina (the Consumer Advocate) and Brenda and Keith Hays, insureds under a State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm") homeowners' policy, requested the South Carolina Department of Insurance ("the Department") to initiate a public hearing on the filing of State Farm requesting an approval of an overall increase of +15.5% in its homeowners' insurance rates.



2. On March 27, 2002, 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 Docket No. 02-ALJ-09-0118-CC. A hearing on the matter was set for June 20, 2002, but all parties requested a continuance due to a scheduling conflict and the fact that the parties were close to resolving all outstanding issues.



4. Meanwhile, the Consumer Advocate and Brenda and Keith Hays requested several sets of additional information from State Farm. The Consumer Advocate retained two experts to provide an independent actuarial analysis and to assist him with various aspects of the filing. As part of his analysis, the Consumer Advocate felt it was necessary to include in the review the impact of the changes in various coverages approved as a form filing by the Department on July 5, 2000 and implemented March 1, 2001, for new business and May 1, 2001, for renewals because it was not clear how those coverage additions, eliminations and reductions were incorporated in the calculations of current level premiums and losses in the present filing.



5. The Consumer Advocate also expressed concerns regarding the meaning of the revised basis for repair or replacement of damage to property from "equivalent" construction to "similar" construction.



6. State Farm provided the final set of responses to the issues related to the changes in coverages on June3, 2002. A copy of that response is attached to this order and is adopted by the parties as an integral part of the order.



7. The parties held two prehearing conferences in order to resolve any outstanding issues.



8. Based on the analysis of the entire body of information provided by State Farm, the Consumer Advocate and the Hayses now come to the conclusion that the adverse experience documented by State Farm would likely be sufficient to justify an increase in rates.



9. In view of this actuarial analysis and after reviewing State Farm's June 3, 2002, explanation of the rate impact of the coverage changes referred to in Item 4, above, the Consumer Advocate and the Hayses have decided not to contest the rate filing on these grounds.



10. With respect to the use of "similar" construction instead of "equivalent" construction, State Farm represents that the new language does not result in a change in its claim handling, but merely reflects State Farm's ability to repair or replace property that is no longer available at any cost and that it has been applying and will continue to apply this interpretation, as further elaborated upon in item 13 of its June 3, 2002, response, in handling claims of its South Carolina insureds.



11. Based upon the foregoing, the Consumer Advocate and Brenda and Keith Hays now withdraw their original request for a hearing in this matter.



12. There are no unresolved issues remaining; therefore, all parties agree to the dismissal of this matter.



NOW THEREFORE, it is ordered that the above-captioned matter be dismissed.



IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of July, 2002, at Columbia, South Carolina.





______________________________

Ray N. Stevens

Administrative Law Judge

WE SO MOVE AND CONSENT:



NELSON MULLIN RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, L.L.P.





By:____________________________________________

James C. Gray, Jr.

William C. Wood, Jr.

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P.

1330 Lady Street, Third Floor

Post Office Box 11070

Columbia, SC 29211

(803) 799-2000



Richard Bates

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

One State Farm Plaza

Bloomington, IL 61710

(309) 766-3535

Attorneys for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company



WE SO MOVE AND CONSENT:



________________________________

T. Douglas Concannon

Associate General Counsel

P.O. Box 100105

Columbia, SC 29202

(803) 737-6132



Attorney for the South Carolina Department of Insurance, Respondent

WE SO MOVE AND CONSENT:







________________________________

Hana Pokorna-Williamson

Staff Attorney

South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs

P.O. Box 5757

Columbia, SC 29250-5757

(803) 734-4188



Attorney for Phillip S. Porter, Esq., Consumer Advocate for the

State of South Carolina, Intervenor/Respondent

WE SO MOVE AND CONSENT:









________________________________

Keith Hays





_________________________________

Brenda Hays

251 Osprey Point

North Augusta, South Carolina 29841

(843) 442-9429



Respondent/Intervenors


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court