ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-10, et. seq. (Supp. 1995) and
S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310, et. seq. (Supp. 1995) upon a request for a Personal Auto Manual
rate and rule revision. The Consumer Advocate was granted leave to intervene in this proceeding
without objection on March 21, 1996. Through its prehearing statement dated April 3, 1996, the
Consumer Advocate notified the Court that it would not oppose the filing. A hearing was held on
April 23, 1996. The request was not contested by the Department of Insurance or any member of
the public. Upon review of the filing, testimony, and evidence submitted, the rate increase request
is approved.
FINDING OF FACT
By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:
1. On January 30, 1996, Petitioner submitted a formal filing for a Personal Auto Manual rate and
rule revision to the South Carolina Department of Insurance, which has an overall rate level effect
of 0.1% for USAA and -0.1% for USAA-CIC.
2. By notices published in newspapers dated March 7, 14, and 19, 1996, 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 23, 1996. No member of the public contested the rate increase.
3. The last insurance premium rate increase received by the above-named member insurers of the
USAA Group for its Personal Automobile insurance premium rate was on December 31, 1994.
4. The prefiled testimony of Michael Broll, Assistant Vice President of USAA reveal that the
application proposes revisions to base rates, expense fees, model year/symbol relativities,
territorial relativities, anti-theft discounts, implementation of new coverage component limits (B1,
UM and PD), implementation of 5-Tiered rating structures, and elimination of the anti-lock brake
discount.
5. The Department of Insurance and the Department of Consumer Affairs 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 rate increase will product rates that are not
excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.
CONCLUSION 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. § 38-73-910 (Supp. 1995) and Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the 1976
Code, as amended.
2. Generally, a request for an insurance rate increase is governed by S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-430
(Supp. 1995).
3. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 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 in advance of
the hearing.
4. Petitioners established by the preponderance of the evidence that their requested rate increase
would not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 38-73-430
and 38-73-450(6) (Supp. 1995).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that the insurance premium rate increase requested by
Petitioners is approved and shall be effective any time after the date of this Order.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge Division
April _____, 1996
Columbia, South Carolina |
