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withdrawn and the consumer would pay the same premium resulting in an increase of 4.2 percent.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. |