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:
National Grange Mutual Insurance Company vs. SCDOI

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
National Grange Mutual Insurance Company

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
95-ALJ-09-0021-CC

APPEARANCES:
Jack Horejsi, for Petitioner

Lee Jedziniak, Attorney for Respondent
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

(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 package insurance rate increase. A hearing was conducted May 10, 1995. The request was not contested by the South Carolina 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) Petitioner submitted on December 22, 1994 (amended January 23, 1995 and

March 16, 1995) to the South Carolina Department of Insurance a formal filing for revision of its Commercial Package Policy eligibility rules, having an overall premium increase impact of 0.5% on its property and casualty commercial package insurance rates.

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

(3) The filing details miscellaneous revisions to Petitioner's market classifications of commercial businesses to determine eligibility for specially filed package modifications applicable to various business policies.

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

(5) The South Carolina Department of Insurance, through its Assistant Chief 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.

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

(7) The date of Petitioner's last rate revision for this line of insurance was September 30, 1993.

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 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. 1994).



ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the insurance rate increase requested by Petitioner is approved. The effective date of the revisions shall be on or after the date of this Order. Petitioner shall inform the South Carolina Department of Insurance of the date of implementation of the new rates.



______________________________________

STEPHEN P. BATES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE



May _____, 1995

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court