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 premium rate increase. A hearing was
conducted on December 6, 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 property and casualty 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. Government Employees 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 September 20, 1995, to the South Carolina Department of Insurance a
formal filing for revision of its private passenger automobile property and casualty insurance
premium rate increase.
2. The filing requested a rate change that results in an overall percentage increase of 6.50%.
3. By notice dated October 17, 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 December 6, 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 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 no oppose
the request for an amended rate increase. Further, no member of the public entered any
opposition to the request for a rate increase. Accordingly, the 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, Government Employees Insurance
Company, is approved with the rate increase as sought in the September 20, 1995, filing effective
upon the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
This 6th day of December, 1995. |