ORDERS:
DECISION AND ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
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 commercial auto premium
rate increase. A hearing was held on May 28, 1996, at the Administrative Law Judge Division.
The request was not contested by the Department of Insurance or any member of the public.
The rate increase requested by the Petitioner is approved.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon their
credibility, taking into consideration the burden of persuasion by the Parties, I make the following
Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1. On or about February 28, 1996, Federated Mutual Insurance Company filed a request for a
4.3% increase with the South Carolina Department of Insurance. This requested modification of
commercial auto property and casualty premium rates was accompanied by a filing Memorandum
and supporting exhibits. The Department of Insurance reviewed Federated's request and
subsequently filed a request for a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge
Division.
2. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to the Parties and
the State Consumer Advocate. Furthermore, notice of the filing and public hearing was given in
five newspapers of statewide circulation to the members of the public at least 30 days prior to the
hearing.
3. The rate increase was not contested by any member of the public or the State Consumer
Advocate.
4. Martin M. Simons, Chief Casualty Actuary for the South Carolina Department of Insurance and
expert in the field of actuarial science, provided expert testimony based upon his review of the
filing materials and exhibits. He further stated that the requested modification would produce an
effective increase of approximately 4.3%. Mr. Simons concluded that the proposed modification
and rates if approved would result in rates which were adequate and not excessive or unfairly
discriminatory.
5. The 4.3% rate increase requested by the Petitioner would result in rates which are adequate and
not excessive or unfairly discriminatory.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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 increase 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. Petitioner has sufficiently established that the increase in premium rates would not be excessive,
inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. See S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-10 (a) (1) (Supp. 1995).
5. S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-920 (Supp. 1995) prohibits an insurer from receiving an insurance
premium 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. Petitioner received a premium rate
decrease on June 15, 1995.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that the insurance rate increase requested by the Federated
Mutual Insurance Company in the filing is approved. The effective date of the increase shall not
occur before the date of this Order.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
The Honorable Ralph K. Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
June 17, 1996
Columbia, South Carolina |
