ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me on the application of Lititz Mutual Insurance for a rate increase on
its homeowners' property and casualty insurance pursuant to S. C. Code Ann. §§38-73-10, et.
seq.(Supp. 1994) and S. C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310, et. seq. (Rev. 1986 & Supp. 1994). The
South Carolina Consumer Advocate petitioned to intervene of right which was granted by Order
dated July 31, 1995. After notice to the parties, a public hearing and contested case hearing was
conducted on August 31, 1995. The request was not contested by the Departments of Insurance
and Consumer Affairs or any member of the public. Upon review of the testimony and evidence
submitted, the rate increase 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. Lititz Mutual filed an application with the Department of Insurance on June 15, 1995 for a
revision in its homeowners property and casualty insurance premium rates of an overall increase
of 4.9%.
2. The filing details various changes, but did not contain information to support the proposed
increase.
3. Because Lititz Mutual did not supply information, the Department of Insurance began informal
administrative discovery. On July 27, 1995, Lititz Mutual provided actuarial exhibits to
supplement the original filing and provided statistical support for the rate increase.
4. The Department of Insurance conducted an independent investigation of the filing and its Chief
Actuary, Martin Simons, represents that the rate increase request will produce rates that are not
excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.
5. The last rate increase for Petitioner was December 1, 1994. In its filing, Petitioner request an
effective date on or after December 1, 1995.
6. By notice dated July 14, 1995 and published on July 25, 26, and 27, 1995 in various
newspapers throughout the State, 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 31, 1995. No member of
the public appeared at the hearing.
7. The Department of Consumer Affairs conducted an independent investigation of the filing and
reached the same conclusion as the Department of Insurance.
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 the 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 (Rev. 1989) 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 December 1, 1994. Therefore, any increases proposed by the current filing must not take
effect before the lapse of twelve months.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that the insurance rate increase request by Lititz Mutual
Insurance Company in the filing is approved. The effective date of the increase shall not occur
before December 1, 1995.
AND SO IT IS ORDERED.
__________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
September _____, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina. |
