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:
Heritage Indemnity Company vs. SCDOI

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Heritage Indemnity Company

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
95-ALJ-09-0199-CC

APPEARANCES:
Robert Wyke, for Petitioner

Alicia Clawson, 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. (1986 & Supp. 1994) upon a request for a mechanical breakdown casualty insurance premium rate increase. A hearing was conducted

July 12, 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) Petitioners submitted on March 2, 1995, to the South Carolina Department of Insurance a formal filing for revision of its mechanical breakdown casualty insurance rates, having an overall premium increase impact of 6.28%.

(2) By notice dated May 23, 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 July 12, 1995.

(3) The filing details miscellaneous changes including the following: option upgrades made part of standard coverage; seals and gasket previously excluded now included in coverage; and underwriting restrictions on some plans removed/liberalized.

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

(5) South Carolina Department of Insurance, through its Chief Casualty Actuary, Mr. Martin M. Simons, 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) Petitioner's last approved rate increase was effective November 27, 1991.

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) 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 approved increase shall not be effective prior to the date of this Order.

__________________________________

STEPHEN P. BATES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

July ____, 1995

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court