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:
Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest vs. SCDOI

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

Intervenor:
Philip S. Porter
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
94-ALJ-09-0305-CC

APPEARANCES:
Appearances: Allen Anderson, for Petitioner

Lee P. Jedziniak, Attorney for Respondent

Nancy Vaughn Coombs, Attorney for Intervenor
 

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 private passenger automobile property and casualty insurance rate increase. A hearing was conducted February 14, 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 August 15, 1994, resubmitted on September 1, 1994, to the South Carolina Department of Insurance a formal filing for a request for a private passenger automobile property and casualty insurance rate increase.

(2) The overall impact of the requested revision is -3.1%; however, some insureds will experience a premium rate increase.

(3) By notice dated December 20, 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 February 14, 1995.

(4) The filing details the indicated rate changes and proposed rate changes for bodily injury, property damage, personal injury protection, uninsured motorists, total liability, comprehensive, collision, and total physical damage coverages.

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

(6) The Department of Insurance, through its Assistant Chief Property and Casualty Actuary, Mr. Dean Kruger, testifying as an expert witness, represents that the rate increase request will produce rates that are not excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.

(7) The Consumer Advocate conducted an independent investigation of the filing.

(8) 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 (Supp. 1993) 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. (Supp. 1993).

(3) Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-910 (Supp. 1993), 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) (Supp. 1993.).



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 March 15, 1995.



________________________________________

STEPHEN P. BATES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

February ____, 1995

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court