SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

STATEMENT OF CASE

This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. CODE ANN. Section 38-73-910 (1976), S.C. CODE ANN. Section 38-73-1370., et. seq. (Supp. 1995), and S.C. CODE ANN. Section 1-23-600 (B) (Supp. 1995) upon Petitioner's request for a decrease in its Commercial Auto Liability and Physical Damage basic limits loss costs. A hearing was held May 29, 1996 at the Administrative Law Judge Division, 1205 Pendeleton Street, Columbia, South Carolina. The request was not contested by the Department of Insurance or any member of the public.

Present at the hearing were Mr. Lester H. Hammond, III, representing Insurance Services Office, Inc.; Mr. Martin M. Simons, Chief Actuary, South Carolina Department of Insurance; and Mr. T. Douglas Concannon, representing the South Carolina Department of Insurance.

The loss costs changes in basic limits, increased limits and zone-rated risks are approved.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Having carefully considered all testimony, evidence and arguments presented at the hearing of this matter, by a preponderance of the evidence, I find:

1. Respondent published notice advising the public that an application for a loss costs change by Petitioner had been made and that a hearing would be held on May 29, 1996, in The Charleston News & Courier, The Greenville News, The News & Press, The Rock HillEvening Herald, and the Columbia Newspapers, Inc.

2. On February 21, 1996, Insurance Services Office, Inc. ("ISO") submitted a formal filing with the Director of Insurance requesting approval of an overall decrease of -12.5% in its Commercial Auto Liability and Physical Damage basic limits loss costs and for a +3.1% for Increased Limits and +32.4% for Zone-Rated Risks with supporting material (ISO filing CA 96-TRLA1).

3. The filer's most recent loss-costs level change was an overall change of 0.0% effective on June 1, 1994.

4. As filed, the filer's indicated and filed statewide advisory basic limits loss costs level changes from the current loss costs were:

5. As filed, the filer's indicated and filed statewide increased limits factor changes from current factors were:

6. As filed, the filer's filed advisory loss costs level changes for South Carolina Zone-Rated Risks were:

7. The revision of the loss costs as presented in Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 are appropriate.

8. The filer's proposed effective or distribution date will be October 1, 1996.

9. The Chief Actuary has reviewed this filing and has determined that the requested loss costs revisions, when used by the ISO member and subscriber companies, would produce rates that are not excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.

10. Based on these facts the Insurance Department does not oppose the overall loss costs level changes set forth in Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6.

11. ISO, as the filer, submitted the pre-filed expert testimony of Kevin B. Thompson, Assistant Vice President and Actuary with the Commercial Casualty Actuarial Division of ISO. By stipulation of the parties on the record, this testimony was admitted without objections. He testified that the requested loss-costs revisions, when used by the ISO member and subscriber companies, would produce rates that are not excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:

1. The 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, as amended, of the 1976 Code.

2. A request for an insurance rate change is governed by S. C. CODE ANN. §§ 38-73-10 et. seq. (Supp. 1995).

3. Pursuant to S. C. CODE ANN. § 38-73-910 (Supp. 1995), notice of the filing and of the public hearing must be published in all newspapers of statewide circulation at least 30 days in advance of the hearing.

4. The Petitioner has sufficiently established that the changes in the loss costs, when used by its member and subscriber companies, would produce rates that would not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. See S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 38-73-10(a) (1) and 38-73-330(2) (Supp. 1995).

5. S.C. CODE ANN. § 38-73-920 (Supp. 1995) prohibits an insurer from receiving an insurance rate increase in any line of insurance or in any type of insurance for which a rate increase has been granted within the preceding twelve months.

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that the insurance loss costs changes requested by Insurance Services Office, Inc. in the filing are approved. The effective date of these changes shall not occur before the date of this Order.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

JOHN D. GEATHERS

Administrative Law Judge

Columbia, South Carolina

May ____, 1996