ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me on the application of Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest
for a rate increase on its homeowners property and casualty insurance 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). After notice to the parties, a public hearing and contested case hearing were conducted on
February 14, 1995. The request was not contested by the Department of Insurance, Department
of Consumer Affairs or any member of the public. Upon review of the testimony and evidence
submitted, the rate increase request is approved.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I make the following findings of fact, taking into consideration the burden on the parties to
establish their cases by a preponderance of the evidence and taking into account the credibility of
the witnesses:
1. Hartford Insurance filed an application with the Department of Insurance in October 1994 with
a revision in the base rate, revision of certain protection classes and replacement cost for a
dwelling resulting in an overall rate increase of 10.4 percent in the homeowners property and
casualty line of insurance.
2. By notice dated December 20, 1994, the public was advised that an application for a rate
increase by Petitioner had been made and that a hearing would be held on February 14, 1995.
3. The filing contains information to support the proposed increase and details various changes.
4. The Departments of Insurance and Consumer Affairs each conducted an independent
investigation of the filing.
5. The Department of Insurance, through its Assistant Chief Actuary, Mr. Dean Kruger,
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 findings of fact, I conclude as a matter of law:
1. The 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 1, as amended, of the 1976 Code.
2. A rate for an insurance rate increase is governed by S.C. Code Ann. §§ 38-73-10, et seq (Supp.
1993).
3. 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. S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-910 (Supp. 1993).
4. Petitioner met the burden of proof in a rate increase request by establishing that the increased
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 Petitioner,
Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest are approved. The effective date of the revisions is
March 1, 1995.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
February ____, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina. |
