ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-10, et seq.,
(Rev. 1989 & Supp. 1994) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq. (Rev. 1986 & Supp. 1994)
upon a request for a property and casualty commercial general liability insurance premium rate
increase. A hearing was conducted on April 19, 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 December 2, 1994 (amended January 31, 1995 and April 4, 1995) to
the South Carolina Department of Insurance a formal filing for revision of property and casualty
general liability insurance rule and premium rates, having an overall premium increase impact of
0.6%.
(2) By notice dated February 28, 1995, and published in several newspapers of general
circulation throughout the State thirty (30) or more days in advance of the hearing, the public was
advised that an application for a rate increase by Petitioners had been made and that a hearing
would be held on April 19, 1995.
(3) The filing includes miscellaneous liability class rate increases for the following classes:
owners and contractors protective; beauty parlor and barber shops; condominium directors and
officers; donated labor medical payments; farm; funeral directors or cemetery; ministers
professional; special mobile parks or courts; voluntary property damage; employee benefits
endorsement; optometrists professional; comprehensive family; and comprehensive farm. It also
includes several corresponding miscellaneous rule revisions.
(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, as amended, 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 (Rev. 1989) 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. (Rev. 1989 & Supp. 1994).
(3) Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-910 (Rev. 1989), 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. 1994).
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the insurance rate increase requested by Petitioners is
approved. The approved revisions are not to be effective prior to the date of this Order.
___________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
April 28, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina |
