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:
State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company vs. SCDOI

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
96-ALJ-09-0233-CC

APPEARANCES:
Wes Florence, for Petitioner

T. Douglas Concannon, Attorney for Respondent
 

ORDERS:

ORDER AND DECISION

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. (1986 & Supp. 1995) upon a request for a private passenger automobile property and casualty insurance premium rate increase. A hearing was conducted August 8, 1996. The request was not contested by the South Carolina Department of Insurance or any member of the public. Upon review of the testimony and evidence submitted, the rate increase request is approved.

FINDINGS OF FACT

By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:

(1) Petitioner submitted on April 24, 1996, to the South Carolina Department of Insurance a formal filing for revision of its private passenger automobile property and casualty insurance rates, having an overall premium increase impact of 1.5%.

(2) By notice dated May June 14, 1996, which was published in four newspapers of general circulation throughout the state, the public was advised that an application for a rate increase by Petitioner had been made and that a hearing would be held on August 8, 1996.

(3) The filing details miscellaneous changes including the following: revision of base rates for Voluntary and Alternative Physical Damage Business; model year updated to Symbol 2, 1996; revision of rating rule on golf cart coverage; and introduction of new coverages for Leased Autos/Owned Autos and Prime of Life Driver Discount.

(4) The South Carolina Department of Insurance conducted an independent investigation of the filing.

(5) The South Carolina Department of Insurance, through Dean Frueger, its Property and Casualty Division Director and Assistant Casualty Actuary, testifying as an expert witness, represented that the rate increase request will produce rates that are not excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.

(6) The rate increase request was not contested by the State Consumer Advocate or any member of the public.

(7) Petitioner's last approved rate increase was effective October 1, 1995.

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 (1995 Supp.) and Chapter 23 of Title I of the 1976 Code, as amended.

(2) Generally, a request for an insurance rate increase is governed by S.C. Code Ann. §§38-73-10, et seq. (1995 Supp.).

(3) Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-910 (1995 Supp.), notice of the filing and of the public hearing was given in all newspapers of statewide circulation at least 30 days in advance of the hearing.

(4) Petitioner met the burden of proof in a rate increase request by establishing that the revised rates would not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. See, S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-10(a)(1) (1995 Supp.).



ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the insurance rate increase requested by Petitioner is approved. The effective date of the revisions are not to be effective prior to October 1, 1996.



_____________________________

STEPHEN P. BATES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

September 9, 1996

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court