ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
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 Homeowner Property and Casualty Insurance premium rate increase. A hearing was
conducted on May 18, 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 February 7, 1995 (amended April 25, 1995), to the South Carolina
Department of Insurance a formal filing for revision of homeowner property and casualty
insurance rule and premium rates in its Independent Homeowner program, having an overall
premium increase impact of 3.7%.
(2) By notice dated March 20, 1995, 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 Petitioner had been made and that a hearing would be
held on May 18, 1995.
(3) The filing contains miscellaneous revisions to homeowner policies, including the following:
the introduction of non-bind rules; decrease in all optional deductible charges; adjustment of
certain territorial relativities; increase in base premium rates; and various modification to renter
and condominium programs.
(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 Property and
Casualty Actuary, Mr. Dean Kruger, 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.
(7) The last rate revision approved for this line of insurance was effective December 23, 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 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. 1994).
(5) Issues raised at the hearing but not specifically addressed in this Order are deemed denied.
ALJD Rule 29.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the insurance rate increase requested by Petitioner is
approved. The approved revisions are not to be effective prior to the date of this Order.
Petitioner shall inform the South Carolina Department of Insurance of the date of implementation
of the revised rules and rates.
______________________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
May ___, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina |