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
motorcycle 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. Upon review
of the testimony and evidence submitted, the rate increase request is approved.
II. Issues
Will the motorcycle 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 does not oppose the rate increase requested.
International Indemnity 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 18, 1995, and supplemented on October 13, 1995, to the
South Carolina Department of Insurance a formal filing for revision of its motorcycle property
and casualty insurance premium rate increase.
2. The filing requested a rate change that results in an overall percentage change of 4.70%, and a
9.10% increase on physical damage insurance.
3. By notice dated October 20, 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. Further, no member of the public nor the Consumer Advocate 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, International Indemnity Company, is
approved with the rate increase as sought in the September 18, 1995, and October 13, 1995,
supplemental filing effective upon the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
This 6th day of December, 1995. |