SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

STATEMENT OF CASE

This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann § 38-73-910 (Supp. 1995); 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 an increase in its General Liability Property and Casualty rates for Premises/Operations and Products/ Completed Operations. A hearing was held on June 12, 1996 at the Administrative Law Judge Division, 1205 Pendleton 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. Gregory Schmidt and Kathleen A. Chafin, representing The Cincinnati Insurance Company, The Cincinnati Casualty Company and the Cincinnati Indemnity Company, Member Insurers of the Cincinnati Financial Corporation; Mr. Martin M. Simons, Chief Actuary, South Carolina Department of Insurance; and Mr. T. Douglas Concannon, representing the South Carolina Department of Insurance.

The rate increase requested by the Petitioners is approved.

FINDING 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 General Liability Property and Casualty rates.

1. Respondent published notice advising the public that an application for a rate increase in The Rock Hill Evening Herald, The Charleston Post and Courier, The News and Press, Inc., The State and The Greenville News.

2. On March 25, 1996, the Petitioners made a filing with the Director of Insurance requesting approval of an overall increase of +1.6% in its General Liability Property and Casualty rates with supporting material (filing GL-96-0004-SC).

3. The filer's most recent rate increase was an overall increase of +0.5% effective January 1, 1995.

4. As filed, the filer's indicated and filed statewide advisory rate increase change from the current rates were:

5. The filers' proposed effective or distribution date will be September 1, 1996.

6. Martin M. Simons, the Chief Actuary of the South Carolina Department of Insurance has reviewed this filing, and has determined that the requested rate increase revision, when used by the Petitioners would produce rates that are not excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory. Based on these facts, the Insurance Department does not oppose the overall rate increase

7. The requested rate revision 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 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 state wide circulation at least 30 days in advance of the hearing.

4. The Petitioners have sufficiently established that the rate increase would produce rates that are not 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.

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that the insurance rate increase requested by the Petitioners 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

_________________________________

Ralph King Anderson, III

Administrative Law Judge

Columbia, South Carolina

July 12, 1996