South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
South Carolina Reinsurance Facility vs. SCDOI

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
South Carolina Reinsurance Facility

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

Intervenor:
Philip S. Porter, South Carolina Consumer Advocate
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
95-ALJ-09-0733-CC

APPEARANCES:
Thomas C. Salane, Esq., for Petitioner

Gwen Fuller, Esq., for Respondent

Hana Pokorna-Williamson, Esq., for Intervenor, Consumer Advocate
 

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 expense component increase. A hearing was conducted on January 15, 1996. 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 expense component 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 increases requested. South Carolina Reinsurance Facility 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 October 18, 1995, to the South Carolina Department of Insurance a formal filing for revision of its private passenger automobile insurance premium rate expense component increase.

2. The filing requested a rate change that results in an overall percentage change of 3.26%.

3. By notice dated November 22, 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 January 15, 1996.

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 not 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, South Carolina Reinsurance Facility, is approved with the rate increase as sought in the October 18, 1995, filing effective upon the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.



____________________________

RAY N. STEVENS

Administrative Law Judge

This 15th day of January, 1996.


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court