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 private passenger
automobile property and casualty insurance premium rate increase. Pursuant to a previous Order
of this tribunal dated May 31, 1995, the Consumer Advocate was granted leave to intervene
without objection. The Consumer Advocate contested petitioner's initial rate increase request of
9.9%. On August 4, 1995, the Consumer Advocate advised this tribunal that petitioner amended
its rate increase request to 4.0% and that the Consumer Advocate no longer opposed the rate
increase request. A hearing was held on August 16, 1995. Petitioner's request for a private
passenger automobile property and casualty insurance premium rate increase 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 April 17, 1995, petitioner submitted a formal filing for a private passenger automobile
property and casualty insurance premium rate increase to the South Carolina Department of
Insurance, having an overall premium increase impact of 4.0%.
2. The public was advised that an application for a rate increase by petitioner had been made and
that a hearing would be held on August 16, 1995.
3. The last insurance premium rate change received by American States Insurance Company for
its private passenger automobile property and casualty insurance premium rate was an overall rate
increase on October 8, 1993.
4. The Department of Insurance conducted an independent investigation of the filing.
5. The Department of Insurance, through its Assistant Casualty Actuary, Dean S. Kruger,
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 1 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 established by the preponderance of the evidence that its 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
petitioner is approved and shall be effective any time after the date of this Order.
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 |
