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 insurance premium rate increase. A hearing was conducted on November
9, 1995. The request was not opposed 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
Will the private passenger automobile insurance premium rate increase request made by the
Petitioner result in rates that 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
increase requested. Horace Mann Insurance Company 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. Petitioner submitted on July 11, 1995, to the South Carolina Department of Insurance a formal
filing for revision of its private passenger automobile insurance premium rates.
2. The filing requested a rate change that results in an overall average decrease of 6.30 percent for
those policy holders of all types of private passenger automobile property and casualty insurance
coverage, but could result in a 2.0 percent premium rate increase for those policy holders with
bodily injury and property damage liability insurance coverage.
3. By notice dated September 11, 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 Petitioner had been made and that a hearing
would be held on November 9, 1995.
4. The Department of Insurance conducted an independent investigation of the filing.
5. The Department of Insurance, through its Assistant Casualty Actuary, Mr. Dean Kruger,
testifying as an expert witness, represents that the rate increase request, as amended, will produce
rates that are not excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.
6. The rate increase request was not contested by the South Carolina 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. The Consumer Advocate intervened and determined it would not oppose
the request for a rate increase. Further, no member of the public entered any opposition to 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. In general, 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 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 insurance premium rate increase requested by Petitioner, Horace Mann Insurance Company,
is approved with the rate increase as sought in the July 11, 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. |