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:
Insurance Company of North America, et al vs. SCDOI

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Insurance Company of North America, Cigna Insurance Company, Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Century Indemnity Company, Bankers Standard Insurance Company, Alaska Pacific Assurance Company, and Cigna Fire Underwriters Insurance Company, Member Insurers of the Cigna Group

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
95-ALJ-09-0129-CC

APPEARANCES:
Mark Muri
For Petitioners

Lee Jedziniak, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent
 

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. (Supp. 1994) upon a request for a multiple-peril property and casualty insurance premium rate increase. A hearing was held on May 26, 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. On February 21, 1995, Petitioners submitted to the South Carolina Department of Insurance a formal joint filing for a commercial multiple-peril property and casualty insurance premium rate increase, having an overall premium increase impact of 7.9%, and an individual premium impact of a 6.4% reduction for Cigna Insurance Company, a 10% increase for Cigna Fire Underwriters Insurance Company and a 19.4% increase for the other member insurers of the Cigna Group.

2. 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 26, 1995.

3. The last insurance premium rate increase received by the above-named member insurers of the Cigna Group for its multiple-peril property and casualty insurance premium rate was on November 1, 1993.

4. The Department of Insurance conducted an independent investigation of the filing.

5. The Department of Insurance, through its Chief Casualty Actuary, Martin M. Simons, testifying as an expert witness, represented 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 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 (Supp. 1994) 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. (Supp. 1994).

3. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-910 (Supp. 1994), notice of the filing and of the public hearing was given in all newspapers of statewide circulation at least thirty (30) days in advance of the hearing.

4. Petitioners established by the preponderance of the evidence that their requested rate increase would not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. See S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-10(a)(1) (Supp. 1994).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the insurance premium rate increase requested by Petitioners is approved and shall be effective immediately.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

JOHN D. GEATHERS

Administrative Law Judge

Edgar A. Brown Building

1205 Pendleton Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201



This ____ day____ 1995

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court