ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-10 et seq. (Supp 1993) upon a
request filed with the Chief Insurance Commissioner for an overall rate increase of 15.7% in joint
property and casualty homeowners' insurance.
By appropriate notice published February 21 and 22, 1995, the public was advised that the
application had been made and that a hearing would be held on March 27, 1995.
The South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs petitioned to intervene and was ordered to
intervene of right on the above referenced matter on January 11, 1995.
The request for an increase was not contested by the Departments of Insurance or Consumer
Affairs. Upon review of the testimony and evidence submitted, the rate increase is approved.
FINDINGS OF FACT
By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:
1. Petitioners, members of General Accident Insurance Group, submitted to the South Carolina
Department of Insurance a formal filing on November 14, 1994 for revision of homeowners rate.
General Accident Insurance requested an overall increase of 14.7%. The supporting
documentation however refers to 15.7%. The Department of Insurance reviewed the filing based
upon the 15.7% after determining that the 14.7% requested was a typographical error.
Pennsylvania General Insurance Company requested an overall increase of 15.1%; and Potomac
Insurance Company of Illinois and Camden Fire Insurance Association requested an increase of
14.4%.
2. The filing details miscellaneous changes including territory redefinition, revised earthquake
rates, revision of minimum annual premium, revision of risk credits, and revision of unity curve
relativities.
3. The Department of Insurance found the supporting documentation lacked justification and
requested additional information which was received on February 9, 1995.
4. The Department of Insurance and Consumer Affairs conducted independent investigations of
the filing.
5. Martin M. Simons, the chief casualty actuary for the Department of Insurance, represented that
the rate increase will produce rates that are not excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.
6. The Department of Consumer Affairs did not agree with the methodology employed in
determining the rate increase, but did not object to the increase and agreed that the increases will
produce rates that are not excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.
7. The last rate increase for Petitioners was in 1993.
8. Members of the public were notified of the filing and the date of the hearing through
publication in the newspapers on February 21 or February 22, 1995. No one appeared at the
hearing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
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 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. Petitioners 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 the member
insurers of the General Accident Insurance Group in the filing are approved. The rate increase for
General Accident Insurance Company is 15.7%. The effective date of the revisions shall not be
before March 27, 1995.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge Division
March ____, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina. |
