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:
South Carolina Reinsurance Facility vs. SCDOI

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
South Carolina Reinsurance Facility

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Insurance

Intervenor:
Philip S. Porter, South Carolina Consumer Advocate
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
97-ALJ-09-0006-CC

APPEARANCES:
Thomas C. Salane, Esq., for Petitioner

Gwen Fuller, Esq., for Respondent

Hana Pokorna-Williamson, Esq., for Intervenor, Consumer Advocate
 

ORDERS:

ORDER

I. Statement of the Case


This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §38-77-610 (Supp. 1996) and S.C. Code Ann. §1-23-600(B) (Supp. 1996) upon a request for an approval of a recoupment charge calculation. A hearing was conducted on March 17, 1997. The request was not opposed by the Department of Insurance. The Consumer Advocate intervened and also determined it does not contest the recoupment charge calculation. Upon review of the testimony and evidence submitted, the recoupment calculation is approved.

II. Issues

Are the recoupment charges calculated in accordance with the provisions of §38-77-600?

III. Analysis

1. Positions of Parties:

The South Carolina Department of Insurance and the Consumer Advocate do not oppose the calculation of the recoupment charge as submitted by the South Carolina Reinsurance Facility. Likewise, the South Carolina Reinsurance Facility asserts the calculation is correct.

2. Findings of Fact:

I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, the following facts:

1. Petitioner on November 26, 1996, made a filing with the South Carolina Department of Insurance requesting that Petitioner's calculation of a property and casualty recoupment charge be approved.

3. By notice dated January 20, 1997, and published in several newspapers of general circulation throughout the State thirty (30) or more days in advance of the hearing, the public was advised that an approval of a recoupment calculation was requested by Petitioner and that a hearing would be held on March 17, 1997.

4. The Department of Insurance conducted an independent investigation of the request.

5. The Department of Insurance, through its Chief Casualty Actuary, Mr. Martin M. Simons, testifying as an expert witness, represents that the recoupment charge has been calculated correctly in accordance with §38-77-600 (Supp. 1996).

6. The recoupment charge calculation was not contested by the South Carolina Consumer Advocate or any member of the public.



3. Discussion

The filing of a request for approval of a recoupment charge calculation requires the Department of Insurance to determine if the calculation is correct. S.C. Code Ann. §38-77-610 (Supp. 1996). In the instant case, the actuary for the Department of Insurance reviewed the filing and found the recoupment charge calculation was correctly calculated. The Consumer Advocate intervened and determined it did not oppose the calculation. Further, no member of the public entered any opposition to the calculation. Accordingly, the request for the approval of the recoupment charge calculation is granted.

4. Conclusions of Law

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Discussion, I conclude, the following as a matter of law:

1. The South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division is empowered to hear this case pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §38-77-610 (1996) and Chapter 23 of Title I of the 1976 Code, as amended.

2. The request for approval of the recoupment calculation in this matter is governed by S.C. Code Ann. §§ 38-77-600 and 610 (Supp. 1996).

3. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §38-73-910 (1996), 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 by establishing that the recoupment charge calculation was correctly calculated. See S.C. Code Ann. §§38-77-600 and 610 (Supp. 1996).

IV. ORDER


The recoupment charge calculation submitted by Petitioner, South Carolina Reinsurance Facility, is approved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.



____________________________

RAY N. STEVENS

Administrative Law Judge

This 19th Day of March, 1997.


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court