ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-10 et. seq. (Supp. 1998)
and S.C. Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et. seq. (Supp. 1998) on Petitioner's request for revisions to its business
owners loss costs. The hearing in this matter was held before me on March 9, 1999. Present at the
hearing were Dave J. Clark, Assistant Regional Manager of Insurance Services Office, Inc. and
William C. Wood, Esquire, representing Insurance Services Office, Inc.; Dean Kruger, Director of
Forms and Rates, South Carolina Insurance Department; and Douglas Concannon, Esquire,
Associate General Counsel, representing the South Carolina Department of Insurance.
STATEMENT OF CASE
On October 15, 1998, Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) made a filing with the Director
of Insurance, requesting approval of an overall decrease of - 15.0% in its business owners loss costs
with supporting material (ISO filing B 98-RLA1). This filing was amended on November 17, 1998,
to correct an error in the "EXPLANATORY NOTES TO TABLE 3" shown on page B-8.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony, evidence and arguments presented at the hearing
in this matter, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence as to the
requested revision in business owners loss costs:
1. The Respondent published notice of hearing in newspapers of statewide, general
circulation at least 30 days in advance of this hearing.
2. The filer's overall indicated advisory loss cost level change was a decrease of -
15.0% as filed.
3. The filer's most recent business owners loss cost level change was an overall decrease
of - 6.3% effective on May 1, 1997. The effective date of this proposed loss cost level change will
be May 1, 1999.
4. The South Carolina Department of Insurance Director of Forms and Rates has
reviewed this filing, and has determined that the requested loss costs revision, when used by the ISO
member and subscriber companies, would produce rates that are not excessive, inadequate or
unfairly discriminatory. Therefore, based on these facts, the South Carolina Department of Insurance
does not oppose the overall loss costs level changes set forth in Paragraph 2 and requests that these
changes be approved.
5. The revision of the loss costs as presented in Filing B 98-RLA1 is appropriate and
will not produce rates that are 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 South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division is empowered to hear this
case pursuant to S.C. Code Ann § 38-73-1320 (Supp. 1998) and Chapter 23 of Title I of the South
Carolina Code of Laws, as amended.
2. Generally, a request for an insurance loss cost revision is governed by S.C. Code Ann.
§ 38-73-10 et seq. (Supp. 1998).
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 38-73-910 (Supp. 1998) requires that notice of the filing and of the
public hearing be 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 loss cost revision request by establishing that
the revised loss costs would not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. S.C. Code Ann.
§ 38-73-10(a)(1) (Supp. 1998).
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that the proposed loss costs and other changes requested
by Petitioner are approved with an effective date of May 1, 1999.
IT IS SO ORDERED
_____________________________
Ralph K. Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
March 10, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina |