STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COLONIAL PENN INSURANCE COMPANY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 82-148
)
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, )
)
Respondent. )
) COLONIAL PENN INSURANCE COMPANY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 82-1048
)
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, formal hearings were held before the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Donald R. Alexander, on June 9 and July 2, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Randall E. Dyen, Esquire
Vice-President & Associate General Counsel Colonial Penn Insurance Company
5 Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
For Respondent: Daniel Y. Sumner, Esquire
413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
BACKGROUND
On July 20, 1981, Petitioner, Colonial Penn Insurance Company, made a rate filing under Section 627.0651, Florida Statutes, wherein it sought to adjust its private passenger automobile rates so as to produce an overall increase in revenues of 2.1 percent. The new rates were scheduled to become effective on all business written on and after August 1, 1981. On October 13, 1981, Respondent, Department of Insurance, formally notified Petitioner that "on a preliminary basis" it had determined that the rate changes "may be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory" since Petitioner had "failed to provide basic limits rate level indications for all coverages" and had "failed to justify the proposed changes in (its) increased limits factors", particularly
those increased "in the factors up to the 100/300 limits." Petitioner was given sixty days in which to furnish such information as it deemed necessary to cure those defects. On December 28, 1981, Respondent issued its Notice of Disapproval wherein it disapproved the rate filing for future use on the ground that the increase "was not justified by the information . . . submitted in response to the Notice of October 13, 1981 . . ."
Thereafter, Petitioner requested a formal hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to contest the denial of its filing. The matter was forwarded by Respondent to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 20, 1982, with a request that a Hearing Officer be assigned to conduct a hearing. This matter was assigned Case No. 82-148. At the request of the parties, a final hearing was scheduled on April 28, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. The hearing was subsequently rescheduled to June 9, 1982, at the request of Respondent.
On November 13, 1981, Petitioner made a second rate filing wherein it sought to adjust its private passenger automobile rates so as to produce a 10.8 percent overall increase in revenues. The new rates became effective on all business written on or after December 1, 1981. On March 16, 1982, Respondent issued a Notice of Disapproval wherein it disapproved the filing for future use on the grounds that (a) Petitioner had used the same ratemaking methodology in its November 13 filing as it had in its previously rejected July 20 filing, (b) the selected trend factors were unreasonably high, (c) the excess profits in the gross profits and contingencies provision were unacceptable, (d) Petitioner had failed to justify the rate level effect on collision only coverage, (e) Petitioner had failed to justify the rate level effect on its personal injury protection only coverage, and (f) its Rate Manual Rule 17 failed to show a personal injury protection only expense fee. Thereafter, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing to contest the Department's action. Respondent forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 23, 1982, with a request that a Hearing Officer be assigned to conduct a hearing.
This matter was assigned Case No. 82-1048.
Case Nos. 82-148 and 82-1048 were consolidated by Order dated May 18, 1982, at the request of the parties. The final hearing was scheduled for June 9, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. A second hearing was held on July 2, 1982, at the same location.
At the final hearing Petitioner presented the testimony of Neil C. Millman, its assistant vice-president and associate actuary, and Gary Granoff, director of Respondent's Rating Division, and offered Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 17; all were received in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Kenneth J. Ritzenthaler, its property and casualty actuary, and offered Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2, each of which was received in evidence.
The transcript of hearing (four volumes) was filed on July 21, 1982.
Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by Petitioner and Respondent on August 3 and 4, 1982, respectively, and have been considered by the undersigned in the preparation of this order. Findings of fact not included in this order were considered irrelevant to the issues, immaterial to the results reached, or were not supported by competent and substantial evidence.
As clarified by the parties, the issues remaining for determination are:
whether Petitioner was required to provide basic limit rate level indications for its July 20, 1981 filing, and if so, whether such information was provided, and (2) whether the ratemaking methodology and trend factors used
in the November 12, 1981 filing were appropriate, and whether the gross profits and contingencies provision was acceptable.
Based upon all the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner, Colonial Penn Insurance Company (Colonial), is an insurer subject to the regulatory authority of Respondent, Department of Insurance. It is actively engaged in the business of writing private passenger motor vehicle insurance in the State of Florida. Its principal offices are located at 5 Penn Plaza Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
On July 20, 1981, Colonial made a filing with Respondent which adjusted various private passenger automobile rates for its customers in Florida. The new rates were effective on all business written on or after August 1, 1981. Under the filing, a new class plan resulted in an approximate 4 percent decrease in rate levels while base rates were increased a comparable amount to produce no effect on overall premium revenues. 1/ Colonial also proposed to introduce higher increased limit factors for those individuals who wished to purchase higher limits than the $10,000/$20,000/$10,000 minimum liability coverage for bodily injury, accident and property damage. Specifically, it proposed to uniformly increase existing factors by .03 on all coverage combinations higher than the minimum coverage available in Florida. 2/ Collectively, the revised rates generated approximately $1 million in additional annual premium revenues, or a 2.1 percent overall increase.
Approximately six months earlier, Colonial had made a major filing with Respondent which effected changes to both base rates and its classification plan. Because of this, Colonial intended by its July 20 filing to only revise its class plan for major coverages and to increase base rates to offset the negative impact on revenues which the classification changes produced.
In conjunction with its rate filing, Colonial furnished supporting detail for the proposed revisions including three narrative descriptions of the proposed changes and nineteen exhibits. These are found in Petitioner's Exhibit
1 received in evidence. The supporting detail included the actual experience of Colonial for the two years ending March 31, 1981. Colonial also projected its losses nine months beyond the proposed effective date of August 1, 1981 rather than the normal twelve months; however, it did so since it intended to make a second review of the rate levels within six months and a corresponding new rate filing. The data also reflected that for the major coverages of casualty, uninsured motorist and physical damage, Colonial's adjusted loss ratios were
82.9 percent, 107.7 percent and 80.3 percent respectively. This meant that for every dollar of premiums collected, Colonial was paying 82.9 cents, $1.07 and
80.3 cents in losses. Coupled with recent expenses ratios in the 20 to 25 percent range, which are added to the losses, each of the major coverages was projected to operate at a loss.
On July 29, 1981, Respondent's property and casualty actuary submitted a letter to Petitioner containing a series of eight questions concerning the proposed filing. Only the first question is relevant to the proceeding. It asked that Petitioner furnish basic limits rate level indications for all coverages, including detailed support regarding profit and investment income, the various expense components and loss development. Generally, this data would show Colonial's experience for all coverages, adjusted for losses to some future point, and the magnitude of the rate change per coverage based on such adjusted
experience. A part of this data is a projection as to what portion of future premium dollars would be assigned to expenses in operating the business.
Colonial's filing of July 20 did not include these figures.
On August 7, 1981, Petitioner responded to the information request by providing all data except that asked for in question one. It declined to supply that information because (a) the July 20 filing was merely a mid-calendar year analysis, (b) its previous rate filing some six months earlier had shown expense components to be 20 percent to 22 percent and since 1975 such components had remained in the 22 percent to 25 percent range, and when coupled with the high adjusted loss ratios on its major coverages, indicated that each was operating at a loss, (c) its actual experience in losses had exceeded expected losses which indicated its projections were conservative in nature, (d) Exhibits 2, 4 and 5 of its filing indicated that the base rate changes offset the class plan revisions and that no overall decrease in rates was warranted, and (e) three rate filings in the past two years included expense provisions that were readily available for Respondent's review.
A further exchange of correspondence was made on August 20 and September 10, 1981, again concerning the Department's request for basic limits rate level indications for all coverages. Colonial once more attempted to explain, albeit unsuccessfully, why such data was not necessary.
A notice was thereafter issued by the Department on October 13, 1981, giving Petitioner sixty days in which to satisfy the Department's request. This was followed by a Notice of Disapproval rendered on December 28, 1981. That prompted the instant proceeding. Under current law, the July 20 rate filing remains in effect until all administrative proceedings have been completed.
In response to the sixty day notice of October 13, Colonial submitted a second filing with Respondent on November 12, 1981, seeking to adjust certain private passenger automobile rates. Specifically, it proposed to (a) effect a minor revision in the rating of pickup trucks, and (b) make base rate changes by territory for all coverages. It estimated the net effect of the filing to be a
10.8 percent overall increase in premium revenues, although basic coverages were adjusted by varying percentage amounts. These included a 12.3 percent increase on its casualty package, a 5.7 percent increase on its physical damage package, a 17.5 percent increase on uninsured motorist coverage, and a 4.4 percent increase on its comprehensive only package. The initial filing had a computational error which led the Department to believe that the rate filing would produce a 12.8 percent increase rather than the 10.8 percent increase alleged by Colonial. However, Colonial later submitted a corrected exhibit reflecting that the 10.8 percent figure was indeed correct. This refutes the Department's contention that the rate level effect of the filing is still in doubt. On March 16, 1982, the Department issued a Notice of Disapproval in which it disapproved the filing on the following pertinent grounds: (a) the ratemaking methodology used in the filing was the same as that used in the previously rejected July 20 filing, (b) the trend factors used to develop projected losses were unreasonably high, and (c) the inclusion of an equity charge in the net profit factor was unacceptable. Under current law the rates remain in effect until all administrative proceedings have been completed.
The November 12 filing included basic limits rate level indications for all coverages through June 30, 1981. This was the same type of information requested by the Department for the July 20 filing. Colonial brought this to the Department's attention by letter dated November 17, 1981. The November filing was based on actual data for the two years ending June 30, 1981, or a
three month shift forward in experience from that provided in its July 20 filing. Losses were trended forward to October 1, 1982 vis a vis the June 15, 1982 date used in the July filing. Therefore, except for the minor effect of a three and one-half months shift in experience, the November indications provided basic limits rate level indications for the July filing. By comparing the November indications with the adjusted loss ratios reflected in the July filing, it was shown that an increase vis a vis decrease was warranted in July, and that the proposed changes were reasonable.
The filing also contained three narrative memoranda explaining in detail the proposed changes and forty exhibits, which are found in Petitioner's Exhibit 7 received in evidence.
Under generally accepted actuarial procedures, the insurer examines the latest twenty-four and twelve moving annual quarter-ending points of industry claim frequency and severity experience to determine an average annual rate of change to apply to historical data. 3/ This process is known in the trade as trending and is used to project future estimated losses by the insurer. A number of sources of industry experience are available for use in developing these trends. They include data compiled by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (fast track data system), Insurance Services Office (ISO), and the insurer itself. The fast track data system was created in the mid-1970's to monitor insurance results in as responsive fashion as possible.
It includes data compiled from approximately 80 percent of the insurance companies writing business in the State of Florida and countrywide. Conversely, ISO data is derived from companies representing only 31 percent of the motor vehicle insurance business written in Florida, and its frequency data is approximately six months older than that used in the fast track system. 4/ The insurer's data is self-explanatory, and represents the actual experience of the insurer on both a state and countrywide basis.
In projecting losses for its casualty coverages, Colonial first examined its own claim severity (costs) on a state and countrywide basis. Because of a small statistical base on Florida experience for bodily injury claim costs, it complemented its state data by using fast track data for the State of Florida. It did not use ISO data because of the age of that information and the small amount of statistics derived from Florida insurance companies. In developing a bodily injury frequency factor, Colonial used a three-way credibility procedure which included fast track statewide data, and its own state and countrywide experience. The products of the two factors were then combined to produce an estimated 17.8 percent average annual increase in bodily injury losses. A three-way credibility procedure was also used in projecting property damage losses, and produced an estimated 14.7 percent average annual increase in losses, including a plus 1.5 percent frequency component. The methodologies used to derive these figures were consistent with generally accepted actuarial procedures, the most reliable, and produced reasonable results. 5/ Since the November filing, Colonial's actual experience through March 31, 1982 has become available. Therefore, nine months of projections are now actual, and can be used to gauge the accuracy of Colonial's predictions. Between June 30, 1981, and March 31, 1982 the average claim cost for bodily injury increased 7.7 percent on an annualized basis while the actual claim frequency in Florida increased by 19.1 percent on an annualized basis. This compares with the combined 17.8 percent projection used by Colonial in its November filing. Similarly, actual property damage losses increased at an average annual rate of change of 18.4 percent as compared with a 14.7 percent projection made in the November filing. Therefore, the original loss projections of Colonial were conservative in nature, and did not produce
unreasonably high results as the Department asserted. The actual experience also refutes the Department's claims that lower annual rates of change were to be expected, and that the trend factors used by Colonial did not contain basic limits data and were therefore unreliable.
The November filing included a net profit factor of 3.7 percent on liability coverages and 6.9 percent on physical damages coverages. This factor was increased by less than one-tenth of 1 percent by adding an equity charge. The charge was included on the theory that because Section 627.066, Florida Statutes, places a maximum ceiling on the profit that an insurer can earn, but no "floor" on the losses that an insurer can incur, Colonial's risk of doing business in Florida is greater than in a state which imposes no ceiling or floor on profits. Stated differently, Colonial contends that because it will never realize any profits above the established ceiling, its business risk is enlarged. It is noted, however, that Colonial has never experienced excess profits on Florida business. The derivation of the amount of the charge is founded upon four economic concepts dealing with risk and the return on capital. These concepts, and their results, were not challenged or rebutted by Respondent. By including the charge, Colonial's allowable underwriting profit is increased before the excess profits law is invoked. Although the Department opposes the equity charge on the ground that it effectively circumvents the provisions of Section 627.066, it has permitted Colonial to include an equity charge in previous filings without expressly rejecting or disapproving the charge.
There are no written statements of policy, rules or guidelines relating to automobile insurance rates in Florida. There are also no written standards or procedures for reviewing rate filings. The Department follows the broad standards enunciated in Section 627.0651, Florida Statutes, in processing such filings. However, it has promulgated no interpretive rules or regulations concerning these broad statutory standards. Further, there is no specific requirement that an insurer provide basic limits rate level indications in conjunction with a rate filing. It has informally established a set of forms which are required to be completed and filed in conjunction with any rate level filing for private passenger automobiles. These forms were submitted by Colonial with its rate filings.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties thereto pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Subsections 627.0651(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, provide as follows: 627.0651 Making and use of rates for motor
vehicle insurance.-
Insurers shall establish rates, rating schedules, or rating manuals to allow the insurer a reasonable rate of return on motor vehicle in- surance written in Florida. A copy of rates, rating schedules, and rating manuals, and changes therein, shall be filed with the department as soon as practicable following their effective date, but no later than 30 days after that date.
Upon receiving notice of a rate filing
or rate change, the department may review the rate
or rate change to determine if the rate is excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. In making that determination the department may consider the following factors:
Past and prospective loss experience within and outside this state.
The past and prospective administrative, selling, and loss adjustment expenses.
The degree of competition among insurers for the risk insured.
Investment income expected on the flow of funds generated by the average policy for motor vehi- cle insurance in this state.
Dividends, savings, or unabsorbed premium deposits allowed or returned to Florida policyholders, members, or subscribers.
All other relevant factors, including judg- ment factors, within and outside this state.
The cost of repairs to automobiles.
The cost of medical services.
The adequacy of loss reserves.
The cost of reinsurance.
Trend factors, including trends in actual losses per insured unit for the insurer making the filing.
The above statute contains the procedures for establishing insurance rates, and the standards that must be followed by the Department in making its determination as to whether the rates should be approved. There are no codified rules which relate to the subject.
Two insurance filings are at issue and will be dealt with separately hereinbelow. Preliminarily, it is noted that the case is one of first impression before the Division, and the parties have cited no case law or agency final orders that deal with the establishment of insurance rates.
July 20 filing
In a post-hearing pleading, Petitioner has raised a number of arguments in support of its position that the rates should be approved. In summary form, it contends (a) that because the July 20 filing was replaced by the November 12 filing, and is accordingly no longer in effect, the Department has no authority under Section 627.0651, supra, to review the earlier rates; (b) that even if the Department possesses such authority to review the rates, their disapproval was invalid since the November, 1981 filing contained data that indicated the July rates were not excessive or unjustified; (c) that under the rationale of McDonald v. Dept. of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), the Department was required to adopt rules and regulations governing insurance filings, or to explain and support incipient policy not expressed by rule; and that its demand for basic limits rate level indications was not authorized by rule nor supported by an adequate record foundation at the final hearing; and (d) that the Department's unwritten policies are so vague and diverse as to constitute "invisible policymaking" and hence are invalid.
Respondent has relied upon Subsection 627.331(5)(q) Florida Statutes, which grants it the authority to require an insurer to report "(s)uch additional information as the insurance commissioner may require in order to evaluate the
reasonableness of rates or to assure that such rates are not excessive or unfairly discriminatory. . ." It also relies upon Subsection 627.0651(1), supra, and interprets it to mean that the insurer vis a vis Department bears the responsibility of establishing new rates.
The parties have narrowed the issues concerning the July 20 filing to two, those being whether Petitioner was required to provide basic limits rate level indications to support its filing, and if so, whether such information was indeed furnished.
Petitioner first complains that basic limits rate level indications were not necessary to justify its filing, and in any event Respondent had no authority to even require that such data be filed. Because Subsection 627.331(5)(q) reposes such authority in the Department, the latter argument is hereby rejected. This is true even though the primary focus of the statute is to require insurers to annually report certain information to the commissioner to assist in the development of rating information rather than for use in evaluating rate filings; however, the statutory language is sufficiently broad to enable the Department to require the data in question. Accordingly, the request was proper, and should have been complied with. 6/ The evidence discloses that the November, 1981 filing contained basic limits rate level indications which, when applied to the July filing, clearly demonstrated the reasonableness of the earlier filing. The Department objects, with some validity, to data from one filing being used to substantiate another -- but the submission of the requested information in the November filing was in response to the rejection of the earlier filing, and it is unreasonable and impractical to ignore that data and require Petitioner to refile the same information to support a filing that the record now justifies. Accordingly, the request for data was complied with, and the July 20 filing should be approved.
Petitioner has also contended that the July 20 rates are no longer in effect and are therefore beyond the Department's jurisdiction. This contention is deemed to be unavailing. Aside from the fact that no authoritative support for the argument was given, if this contention were correct, it would permit an insurer to circumvent the Department's authority by merely filing a new set of rates whenever an earlier set of rates was being questioned. Such a result is not contemplated by the law, and should not be sanctioned. Finally, Colonial has asserted that the lack of specific rules and guidelines governing insurance rate filings constitutes "invisible policymaking", and renders the entire process invalid. In view of the results reached herein, this argument becomes moot and need not be considered. However, it is nevertheless worthy of a brief comment. Clearly, an agency is not required to formalize by rule all policies having general applicability upon those that it regulates. Instead, it can elect to develop incipient nonrule policy through adjudication on an ad hoc case-by-case basis if the nonrule policy is supported by an adequate record foundation. Florida Cities Water Co. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 384
So.2d 1280 (Fla. 1980). Several reasons exist as to why no rules or regulations have been adopted and why clearly defined policies have not emerged: (a) the apparent lack of 120.57(1) proceedings in which to refine and elucidate such policies, (b) the suggestion by a Department witness that insurance companies do not desire the binding effect of rules in the ratemaking process, and (c) the substantial revision of the present insurance code by the 1982 legislature.
However, the implementation of rules or guidelines setting forth minimum filing requirements for motor vehicle insurance filings would provide a measure of uniformity in filings and certainty on both sides as to what is required.
Moreover, it would cut short the potential for making an "in- visible policymaking" argument that will inevitably arise in the absence of definitive
rules or standards 7/. Finally it would assist in resolving many disputes before they mature into 120.57(1) proceedings.
November 12 filing
As clarified by the parties, three issues remain for determination in resolving the validity of the November 12 filing: (a) whether the proposed increase is 10.8 percent or 12.8 percent, (b) whether the trend factors used in making the loss projections were unusually high, and (c) whether the inclusion of an equity charge in the net profit factor was acceptable.
The evidence discloses that the original November 12 filing included a document which contained a computational error reflecting a rate increase of
12.8 percent in lieu of the requested 10.8 percent. This error was subsequently corrected by the submission of a revised Exhibit C to reflect that the original requested increase of 10.8 percent was indeed correct. Accordingly, it is concluded that the "methodology" was proper, and that adequate documentation to explain the amount of the requested increase was supplied.
Subsection 627.0651(2)(k), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to utilize "trend factors, including trends in actual losses per insured unit for the insurer making the filing." Accordingly, there is no requirement that a particular set of data be used, but only that the data be of value in assisting the Department to determine whether proposed rates are reasonable and proper.
By competent and substantial evidence, Colonial has demonstrated that the trend factors used were not unreasonably high. Actual experience through March 31, 1982 revealed that its projections were low, and that the factors were conservative in nature. Its choice to use the fast track data system in lieu of ISO data as well as its own state and nationwide experience was reasonable and prudent, particularly since fast track data was more current than that used by ISO, and its methodology provided three layers of credibility. While the Department partially disagrees with the factors selected, it failed to demonstrate that its suggested factors, which produced substantially lower projected losses, were more reliable or accurate. It is concluded, therefore, that the trend factors were not unreasonably high, and their use should be approved.
The final issue relates to Colonial's proposed inclusion of an equity charge in the net profit factor. It contends that because it faces a higher risk in Florida due to the cap on profits imposed by the excess profits law, an equity charge is warranted under basic concepts of risk and return on capital. Respondent opposes the charge on the ground that an equity provision effectively circumvents the operation of Section 627.066, Florida Statutes, which limits the amount of profit that may be enjoyed by an insurer. By allowing such a charge, it asserts that Colonial's allowable underwriting profit is increased before the excess profits law is invoked.
There are no rules, regulations or statutory provisions that specifically prohibit the adjustment proposed by Colonial. Therefore, it is concluded there is no legal impediment to approving the charge. Because the weight of the evidence supports the charge, and the opposition thereto is merely philosophical in nature, the equity charge proposed by Colonial should be allowed.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the July 20 rate filing of Colonial Penn Insurance Company
in Case No. 82-148 be APPROVED. It is further
RECOMMENDED that the November 12 rate filing of Colonial Penn Insurance Company in Case No. 82-1048 be APPROVED.
DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DONALD R. ALEXANDER
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1982.
ENDNOTES
1/ A class plan includes the various rating factors that are used in determining an individual's insurance premium. These factors include, inter alia, territory, number of miles driven per year, accident record, use of vehicle, age, whether a defensive driver course has been taken, and other selected variables. By changing a class plan, the insurer assigns different values to these factors, which are then applied to the base rates to produce an insured's premium. The base rates cover major areas of coverage such as casualty, uninsured motorists, physical damage and comprehensive only.
2/ Petitioner proposed one other minor change, that being to reduce the discount for higher deductibles on physical damage coverage. However, its effect was extremely minor in terms of revenue impact.
3/ Claim severity or cost represents the average claim cost for a block of claims. Claim frequency is the relative number of claims which occur for a given number of exposures of policies. These two components must be examined separately in order to reliably predict future losses.
4/ To illustrate the narrow base of information utilized by ISO, State Farm Insurance Company and Allstate Insurance Group, the two largest writers of motor vehicle insurance in Florida, are not included in ISO Florida experience yet they write almost 37 percent of all business written in the State. They are, however, used in the fast track data system.
5/ Although other coverages were also trended, the parties have agreed that only the bodily injury and property damage projections are at issue in this proceeding.
6/ Petitioner understandably was concerned with why the information was necessary. Despite several inquiries, it was apparently not informed of the reason why until January, 1982, when it held a meeting with representatives of Respondent. Had the parties communicated more openly with each other, this facet of the controversy could have been quickly and informally resolved.
7/ See, for example, Rule 25-10.176, Florida Administrative Code, which prescribes minimum filing requirements for water and sewer utilities seeking rate adjustments before the Public Service Commission.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Randall E. Dyen, Esquire Vice-President & Associate General Counsel
Colonial Penn Insurance Company
5 Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, PA 19103
Daniel Y. Sumner, Esquire 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Oct. 30, 1990 | Final Order filed. |
| Aug. 18, 1982 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 21, 1982 | Agency Final Order | |
| Aug. 18, 1982 | Recommended Order | Increase in private passenger automobile rates justified. |
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE vs JOHN MORRIS ALE, 82-000148 (1982)
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER vs GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 82-000148 (1982)
INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE, ET AL. vs. DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, 82-000148 (1982)
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE vs DWETTA JANICE HUNTER, 82-000148 (1982)
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES vs BRIAN WHITNEY MCDANIEL, 82-000148 (1982)
