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
businessowners' property and casualty insurance premium rate increase. A hearing was conducted
on November 27, 1995. The request was not opposed by the Department of Insurance. Upon
review of the testimony and evidence submitted, the rate increase request is approved.
II. Issues
Will the businessowners' property and casualty insurance premium rate pure loss component filing
request made by the Petitioner, when used in combination with the expense component of the
insurance premium charges or the insurance premium rates of its subscribing member insurers,
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 does not oppose the rate increases requested.
Insurance Services Office, Inc., 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 August 10, 1995, to the South Carolina Department of Insurance a
formal filing for revision of its businessowners' property and casualty insurance rate pure loss
component.
2. The filing requested a rate change that results in an overall percentage increase of 2.90%.
3. By notice dated September 18, 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 27, 1995.
4. The Department of Insurance conducted an independent investigation of the filing.
5. 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.
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. Further, no member of the public nor the Consumer Advocate 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, Insurance Services Office, Inc., is
approved with the rate increase as sought in the August 10, 1995, filing effective, at the request of
Petitioner, upon May 1, 1996.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
This 27th day of November, 1995. |
