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 private
passenger automobile property and casualty insurance rate increase. A hearing was conducted on
November 8, 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
Does the private passenger automobile property and casualty insurance rate increase sought by
Petitioner result in rates which are 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. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, et al, 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 July 7, 1995, to the South Carolina Department of Insurance a formal
filing for revision of its private passenger automobile property and casualty insurance premium
rates.
2. The filing requested a rate increase of 7.01%.
3. Subsequent amendments to the original filing were made but did not alter original increase.
4. By notice dated September 6, 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 November 8, 1995.
5. The Department of Insurance conducted an independent investigation of the filing.
6. The Department of Insurance, through its Assistant Casualty Actuary, Mr. Dean Kruger,
testifying as an expert witness, represents that the rate increase request 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 a 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. Petitioners 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 Petitioners, South Carolina Farm Bureau
Mutual Insurance Company, et al, is approved with the rate increase as sought in the July 7, 1995,
filing effective upon the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
This 9th day of November, 1995 |
