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:
General Accident Insurance Company of America, et al vs. SCDOI

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
General Accident Insurance Company of America, The Camden Fire Insurance Association, Pennsylvania General Insurance Company and Potomac Insurance Company of Illinois, Member Insurers of the General Accident Insurance Group

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
95-ALJ-09-0211-CC

APPEARANCES:
W. Dave Evans, Branch Manger for Petitioner

Lee Jedziniak, Esquire for Respondent
 

ORDERS:

ORDER AND DECISION

This matter comes before me on the application of General Accident Insurance Company of America, The Camden Fire Insurance Association, Pennsylvania General Insurance Company and Potomac Insurance Company of Illinois, Member Insurers of the General Accident Insurance Group, collectively referred to as "General Accident", filed an application with the Chief Insurance Commission requesting approval of an overall increase of 0.0% in its joint business-owners' property and casualty insurance premium rate. After notice to the parties, a public hearing was conducted on June 20, 1995 at the Administrative Law Judge Division. The request was not contested by the Department of Insurance or any member of the public. Upon the review of the testimony and evidence submitted, the rate increase request is approved.

FINDINGS OF FACT

I make the following findings of fact, taking into consideration the burden on the parties to establish their cases by a preponderance of the evidence and taking into account the credibility of the witnesses:

1. General Accident filed an application with the Department of Insurance on March 14, 1995 for a joint business-owners' property and casualty insurance premium rate increase. The overall increase would be zero percent.

2. The filing contains information to support the proposed increase and details various changes.

3. Although there will be a overall rate effect of zero percent from the combination of all the changes in the filing, there is a 4.2% change in cost to the consumer based upon changes in discounts. Discounts are currently provided that are loss free. When a business had no losses or claims the net premium would be discounted. Under the proposed change, this discount would be withdrawn and the consumer would pay the same premium resulting in an increase of 4.2 percent.

4. The Department of Insurance conducted an independent investigation of the filing and its Chief Actuary, Martin Simons, represented that the rate increase will produce rates that are not excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.

5. The last rate increase for Petitioner occurred in 1989. In 1993, there was a decrease. In its filing, Petitioner requested an effective date of September 1, 1995 to apply to new policies written and renewal policies written on or after December 1, 1995.

6. By notice dated May 17, 18, and 19, 1995, in various newspapers throughout the State, the public was advised that an application on a rate increase by Petitioner had been made and that hearing would be held on June 20, 1995. No member of the public appeared at the hearing.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The 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 1, as amended, of the 1976 Code.

2. 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 published in all newspapers of statewide circulation at least 30 days in advance of the hearing.

4. Petitioner has established that the increase in premium rates would not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. See S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-10 (a)(1)(Supp. 1994).

5. S. C. Code Ann. § 38-73-920 (Supp. 1994) prohibits an insurer from receiving an insurance premium rate increase in any line of insurance or in any type of insurance for which a rate increase has been granted within the preceding twelve months. Petitioner received a premium rate increase on June 1, 1993.

ORDERED

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that the insurance rate increase requested by the General Accident Insurance Group in the filing are approved. The effective date of the increase shall not occur before the date of this Order.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.







___________________________

ALISON RENEE LEE

Administrative Law Judge



July _____, 1995

Columbia, South Carolina.


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court