ORDERS:
ORDER
I. Statement of the Case
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §38-73-10, et seq., (1989 & Supp.
1994) and S.C. Code Ann. §§1-23-310, et seq. (1986 & Supp. 1994) upon a request for a
property and casualty insurance premium rate increase. A hearing was conducted on August 29,
1995. The request was not contested by the Department of Insurance. The Consumer Advocate
intervened and, after discovery, also determined it does not contest the rate increase. Upon
review of the testimony and evidence submitted, the rate increase request is approved.
II. Issues
Is the property and casualty rate increase of 5% for fire coverage for dwelling and contents and a
15% rate increase for extended coverage yielding an overall rate increase of 6.6% excessive,
inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory within the meaning of S.C. Code Ann.§ 38-73-10(a)(1)
(Supp. 1994)?
III. Analysis
1. Positions of Parties:
The South Carolina Department of Insurance and the Consumer Advocate do not oppose the rate
increases requested. Independent Property & Casualty asserts the rate increase is not excessive,
inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.
2. Findings of Fact:
I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, the following facts:
1. Petitioners submitted on June 14, 1995, to the South Carolina Department of Insurance a
formal filing for revision of its property and casualty insurance premium rates for dwelling fire and
extended coverage.
2. The filing requested a rate increase of 12% for fire coverage for dwellings and contents and
20% for extended coverage.
3. The Petitioner amended its request and now seeks a rate increase of 5% for fire coverage for
dwelling and contents and 15% for extended coverage.
4. By notice dated July 26, 1995, and published in several newspapers of general circulation
throughout the State thirty (30) or more days in advance of the hearing, the public was advised
that an application for a rate increase by Petitioners had been made and that a hearing would be
held on August 29, 1995.
5. The Department of Insurance conducted an independent investigation of the filing.
6. The Department of Insurance, through its Chief Casualty Actuary, Mr. Martin M. Simons,
testifying as an expert witness, represents that the rate increase request, as amended, will produce
rates that are not excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.
7. The rate increase request was not contested by the State Consumer Advocate or any member
of the public.
3. Discussion
The filing of a request for a rate change requires the Department of Insurance to determine if the
rate change is excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory within the meaning of S.C. Code
Ann. §38-73-10(a)(1) (Supp. 1994). In the instant case, the actuary for the Department of
Insurance reviewed the filing and found the rate increase was not excessive, inadequate, or
unfairly discriminatory. Further, the Consumer Advocate intervened and determined it would not
oppose the request for an amended rate increase. Accordingly, the amended request for a rate
increase is approved.
4. Conclusions of Law
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Discussion, I conclude, the following as a matter of
law:
1. The South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division is empowered to hear this case
pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §38-73-910 (1989) 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. (1989 & Supp. 1994).
3. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §38-73-910 (1989), notice of the filing and of the public hearing
was given in all newspapers of statewide circulation at least 30 days in advance of the hearing.
4. Petitioner met the burden of proof in a rate increase request by establishing that the amended
revised rates would not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. See S.C. Code Ann.
§38-73-10(a)(1) (Supp. 1994).
IV. ORDER
The amended insurance rate increase requested by Petitioner, Independent Property and Casualty
Insurance Company, is approved with the amended rate increase of 5% for fire coverage for
dwellings and contents and 15% for extended coverage effective September 1, 1995, for new
business and effective November 1, 1995, for renewals.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
This 29th day of August, 1995 |
