ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me on the application of Boston Old Colony Insurance Company and
the other member insurers of the Continental Insurance Group above named for a rate revision in
its private passenger automobile 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 Continental Insurance Companies merged with CNA Insurance Companies on May
12, 1995. 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 September 5, 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 revision 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. Petitioners filed an application with the Department of Insurance on May 24, 1995 for a
revision in its private passenger automobile property and casualty insurance premium rates.
2. The filing contains information to support the proposed overall decrease of 2.4% and details
various changes.
3. The result of the filings reflect an overall change of -1.9% in its Monoline Auto Program and
-2.5% in its Link Plus Automobile program. Although the overall change is a decrease, there will
be an increase to certain policyholders in South Carolina. The territories affected by an increase
are Spartanburg County; Aiken and Barnwell Counties; Charleston County; and Allendale County
and other counties listed in that territory.
4. Monoline Auto Program is private passenger automobile coverage not written in conjunction
with other types of policies. The Link Plus Automobile Program is private passenger automobile
coverage written in conjunction with other policies which may result in a multipolicy discount.
5. The excess uninsured motorist and excess under insured motorist one million dollar limits will
no longer be offered by Petitioners.
6. 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.
7. The last rate increase for Petitioners was July 26, 1993.
8. By notice dated July 21, 1995 and published on August 2, 3, 4, and 5, 1995 in various
newspapers throughout the State, the public was advised that an application for a rate increase by
Petitioners had been made and that a hearing would be held on September 5, 1995. No member
of the public appeared at the hearing.
9. 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 July 26, 1993. 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 Boston Old Colony
Insurance Company in the filing is approved. The effective date of the increase shall not occurred
before the date of this Order .
AND SO IT IS ORDERED.
__________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
September _____, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina. |
