ORDERS:
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
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 homeowners insurance
premium rate increase. A hearing was held on June 13, 1995, at the Administrative Law Judge
Division , 1205 Pendeleton Street , Columbia, South Carolina. The request was not contested by
the Department of Insurance or any member of the public.
The rate increase requested by the Petitioner is approved.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon their
credibility, taking into consideration the burden of persuasion by the Parties, I make the following
Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1. On or about April 10, 1995, Vigilant Insurance Company filed a request for a 9.7% increase,
plus a tiered credit rule based upon age of construction with the South Carolina Department of
Insurance. This requested modification of homeowner's rates in order to receive a 9.7% overall
rate increase was accompanied by a filing Memorandum and supporting exhibits. The Department
of Insurance reviewed Vigilant's request and subsequently filed a Request for a contested case
Hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division.
2. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to the Parties and
the State Consumer Advocate. Furthermore, notice of the filing and public hearing was given in
all the newspapers of statewide circulation to the members of the public at least 30 days prior to
the hearing.
3. The rate increase was not contested by any member of the public or the State Consumer
Advocate.
4. Martin M. Simons, Chief Casualty Actuary for the South Carolina Department of Insurance and
expert in the field of actuarial science, provided expert testimony based upon his review of the
filing materials and exhibits. Mr. Simons concurred with Vigilant that the proposed rate change
would produce rates which complied with all statutory directives. He further stated that while the
requested modification would produce an effective increase of approximately 9.7%, however, the
overall rate increase would in essence be -0.3% when one takes into account the new house
construction credit. Mr. Simons concluded that the proposed modification and rates if approved
would result in rates which were adequate and not excessive or unfairly discriminatory.
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 must be published in all newspapers of statewide circulation at least 30 days in advance of
the hearing.
4. Petitioner has sufficiently 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 Vigilant
Insurance Company in the filing is approved. The effective date of the increase shall not occur
before the date of this Order.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Honorable Ralph K. Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
July 5, 1995 |
