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:
Boston Old Colony Insurance Company, et al vs. SCDOI

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Boston Old Colony Insurance Company; Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey; The Continental Insurance Company; Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York; Fireman's Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey; Glens Falls Insurance Company; Kansas City Fire and Marine Insurance Company; and Niagara Fire Insurance Company

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
94-ALJ-09-0271-CC

APPEARANCES:
Marian Wittenberg, for Petitioners

Lee Jedziniak, Attorney for Respondent
 

ORDERS:

ORDER AND DECISION

This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-10, et seq.,

(Supp. 1993) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq. (Rev. 1986 & Supp. 1993) upon a request for a joint property and casualty homeowners insurance rate increase. A hearing was conducted January 12, 1995. The request was not contested by the Department of Insurance or any member of the public. Upon review of the testimony and evidence submitted, the rate increase request is approved.

FINDINGS OF FACT

By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:

(1) Petitioners submitted on September 1, 1994 (amended September 14, 1994), to the South Carolina Department of Insurance a formal filing for revision of Monoline Homeowners Link base rates, having an overall premium increase impact of 5.8%, and revision to Link Plus Premises base rates, having an overall premium increase impact of 0.4%.

(2) By notice dated December 7, 1994, the public was advised that an application for a rate increase by Petitioners had been made and that a hearing would be held on January 12, 1995.

(3) The filing details miscellaneous changes including the following: territory redefinition; revision of maximum deductible credit caps; revision of new home discount; revision of deductible credits; and revision of current u-curve relativities.

(4) The Department of Insurance conducted an independent investigation of the filing.

(5) The Department of Insurance, through its Chief Casualty Actuary, Mr. Martin M. Simons, testifying as an expert witness, represents that the rate increase request will produce rates that are not excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.

(6) The rate increase request was not contested by the State Consumer Advocate or any member of the public.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:

(1) The South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division is empowered to hear this case pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-910 (1993 Supp.) and Chapter 23 of Title I of the 1976 Code, as amended.

(2) Generally, a request for an insurance rate increase is governed by S.C. Code Ann.

§§ 38-73-10, et seq. (1993 Supp.).

(3) Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-910 (1993 Supp.), notice of the filing and of the public hearing was given in all newspapers of statewide circulation at least 30 days in advance of the hearing.

(4) Petitioner met the burden of proof in a rate increase request by establishing that the revised rates would not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. See, S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-10(a)(1) (1993 Supp.).



ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the insurance rate increases requested by Petitioners are approved. The effective date of the revisions are not to be effective prior to January 12, 1995.



___________________________

STEPHEN P. BATES

Administrative Law Judge

January ____, 1995

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court