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:
INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE, INC. vs. SCDOI

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE, INC.

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
96-ALJ-09-0136-CC

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

DECISION AND ORDER

STATEMENT OF CASE

This matter comes before me pursuant to S. C. Code Ann. 38-73-910 (1976); S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-1370., et. seq. (Supp. 1995); and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (B) (Supp. 1995) on Petitioner's request for a decrease in its Commercial Inland Marine loss costs. A hearing was held May 28, 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 Lester H. Hammond, III, representing Insurance Services Office, Inc.; Martin M. Simons, Chief Actuary, South Carolina Department of Insurance; and Gwendolyn L. Fuller, Esq., representing the South Carolina Department of Insurance.

The loss cost decrease requested by the Petitioner is approved.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Having carefully considered all testimony, evidence and arguments presented at the hearing in this matter, by a preponderance of the evidence I find as to the requested revision in Commercial Inland Marine loss costs:

1. Respondent published notice advising the public that an application for a loss cost decrease by Petitioner had been made and that a hearing would be held on May 28, 1996, in The Charleston News & Courier, The Greenville News, The News & Press, The Rock HillEvening Herald, and the Columbia Newspapers, Inc.

2. On March 12, 1996, Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) made a filing with the Director of Insurance requesting approval of an overall decrease of -11.1% in its Commercial Inland Marine loss costs with supporting material (ISO filing CM 96-RLA1). The filing was amended on April 25, 1995 to correct a typographical error.

3. The filer's most recent loss-cost level change was an overall decrease of -5.2% effective on October 1, 1994.

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

Class Indicated Filed
Cameras and Musical Instruments + 2.9% + 2.9%
Camera Dealers and Musical Instrument Dealers - 5.3% - 5.3%
Equipment Dealers + 2.3% + 2.3%
Film and Theatrical Property - 5.3% - 5.3%
Floor Plan +43.2% +25.0%
Jewelers Block -11.8% -11.8%
Signs
Southeast Zone -30.2% -30.2%
Balance of United States -35.7% -35.7%
Physicians & Surgeons -15.3% -15.3%
Accounts Receivable - 5.4% - 5.4%
Mail -24.3% -24.3%
Valuable Papers -43.2% -25.0%
Total All Filed Classes -13.2% -11.1%

5. The revision of the loss costs as presented in Paragraph 4 above is appropriate.

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

7. The Chief Casualty Actuary has reviewed this filing and amendments thereto, and has determined that the requested loss cost revision, when used by the ISO member and subscriber companies, would produce rates that are not excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.

8. Based on these facts the Insurance Department does not oppose the overall loss cost level changes set forth in Paragraph 4.

9. ISO, as the filer, submitted the pre-filed expert testimony of George Burger, Assistant Vice President and Actuary with the Commercial Property and Package Division of ISO. By stipulation of the parties on the record, this testimony was admitted without objections. He testified that the requested loss-cost 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 decrease 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 decrease in the loss costs 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 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 overall insurance loss cost decrease requested by Insurance Services Office, Inc. in the filing is approved. The effective date of the decrease shall not occur before the date of this Order.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

RALPH K. ANDERSON, III

Administrative Law Judge

Columbia, South Carolina

May 28, 1996


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court