ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-20, et seq. (Supp. 1995) and
S.C. Code § 1-23-310, et seq. (Supp. 1995) upon an amended request for a homeowners property
and casualty insurance premium rate change filed with the South Carolina Department of
Insurance ("Department"). A hearing was held on May 29, 1996, at the Administrative Law
Judge Division offices, Columbia, South Carolina. The request was not contested by the
Department, the Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina nor any member of the
public. Upon review of the testimony and evidence submitted, the rate filing as amended is
approved.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I make the following Findings of Fact, taking into consideration the burden of the parties to
establish their cases by a preponderance of the evidence and taking into account the credibility of
the witnesses:
1. This Division has personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
2. Notice of the date, time, place and nature of the hearing was timely given to all parties.
3. On March 27, 1996, Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity Company (after this
referred to as "Petitioner"), submitted a formal filing for a homeowners property and casualty
premium rate increase to the Department which had an overall premium increase impact of 3.3%.
4. On May 22, 1996, Petitioner amended this filing such that the revision reflected an overall rate
impact of 0.0%.
5. The public was advised that an application for a rate increase by Petitioner had been made and
that a hearing would be held on May 29, 1996.
6. The last insurance premium rate increase received by Petitioner for its homeowners property
and casualty insurance premium rate was on November 19, 1992 .
7. The Department conducted an independent investigation of the filing.
8. The Department, through its Chief Actuary, Martin M. Simons, testifying as an expert witness,
represented that the rate increase request will produce rates that are not excessive, inadequate or
unfairly discriminatory and recommended that this rate increase request be approved.
9. Pursuant to an order admitting Phillip S. Porter as a formal party of record dated April 27,
1996, the Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina intervened in this matter.
10. The Consumer Advocate reviewed the filing, and after requesting additional information from
the Petitioner and independent review, is of the opinion that the requested amended homeowners
insurance premium will result in rates which are not excessive, inadequate or unfairly
discriminatory.
11. The Consumer Advocate did not oppose the Petitioner's amended request.
CONCLUSIONS 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 I of the South
Carolina Code of Laws, as amended.
2. Generally, 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 was published in five newspapers of statewide circulation at least thirty (30) days in
advance of the hearing. No member of the public appeared at the hearing.
4. An excessive rate is one that will produce a rate of return on the insurer's equity that is greater
than the rate of return for other industries of similar risk to that of the insurer in writing this line
of insurance.
5. An inadequate rate is one that will, upon writing the line of insurance, financially impair the
insurer.
6. A discriminatory rate is one that is inconsistent with the expected insurance cost for the
insured.
7. S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-920 (Rev. 1989) 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 has not received any rate level
change since 1992.
8. Petitioner established by the preponderance of the evidence that its requested rate filing as
amended would not be excessive, inadequate or unfair discriminatory. See S.C. Code Ann. §
38-73-10(a)(1)(Supp. 1995).
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the homeowners property and casualty insurance
premium rate filing submitted by Petitioner as amended is approved and shall be effective any time
after the date of this Order.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________________
MARVIN F. KITTRELL
CHIEF JUDGE
This _______ day of _________1996.
Columbia, South Carolina |
