ORDERS:
ORDER
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 38-73-20, et seq. (Supp. 1995)
and S.C. Code Sec. 1-23-310, et seq. (Supp. 1995) upon a request for a private passenger
automobile property and casualty insurance premium rate increase filed with the South Carolina
Department of Insurance. A hearing was held on April 11, 1996. The request was not contested
by the Department of Insurance, the Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina or any
member of the public. Upon review of the testimony and evidence submitted, the rate increase is
approved.
FINDINGS OF FACT
By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:
1. On December 15, 1995, Petitioner submitted a formal filing for a private passenger property
and casualty premium rate increase to the South Carolina Department of Insurance which had an
overall premium increase impact of 1.3%.
2. On April 5, 1996, Petitioner amended this filing to reflect an overall rate increase of 0.3%.
3. The public was advised that an application for a rate increase by Petitioner had been made and
that a hearing would be held on April 11, 1996.
4. The last insurance premium rate increase received by Petitioner for its private passenger
property and casualty insurance premium rate was on December 1, 1994.
5. The Department of Insurance conducted an independent investigation of the filing.
6. The Department of Insurance, through its Chief Casualty Actuary, Martin M. Simons,
testifying as an expert witness, represented that the requested rate increase will produce rates that
are not excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.
7. Phillip S. Porter, the Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina, was admitted as a
formal party of record by Order dated February 13, 1996.
8. The Consumer Advocate reviewed the filing, and after requesting additional information from
the Petitioner and conducting an independent review, the Consumer Advocate is of the opinion
that the requested amended private passenger automobile insurance premium will result in rates
which are not excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.
9. The Consumer Advocate did not oppose the Petitioner's amended request.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
1. The South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division is empowered to hear this case
pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 38-73-910 (Supp. 1995) and Chapter 23 of Title I of the 1976
Code as amended.
2. Generally, a request for an insurance rate increase is governed by S.C. Code Ann. Sec.
38-73-10, et seq. (Supp. 1995).
3. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 38-73-910 (Supp. 1995), notice of the filing and of the public
hearing was given in all newspapers of statewide circulation at least thirty (30) days before the
hearing.
4. Petitioner established by the preponderance of the evidence that its requested rate increase
would not be excessive, inadequate or unfair discriminatory. See S.C. Code Ann. Sec
38-73-10(a)(1)(Supp. 1995).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the private passenger property and casualty insurance
premium rate increase requested by Petitioner in its amended filing is approved and shall be
effective any time after the date of this Order.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
JOHN D. GEATHERS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
Edgar A. Brown Building
1205 Pendleton Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
This day of April 1996.
Columbia, South Carolina |
