American Emp. Ins. v. COM'R OF INS.

566 A.2d 202, 236 N.J. Super. 428
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedOctober 23, 1989
StatusPublished

This text of 566 A.2d 202 (American Emp. Ins. v. COM'R OF INS.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Emp. Ins. v. COM'R OF INS., 566 A.2d 202, 236 N.J. Super. 428 (N.J. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

236 N.J. Super. 428 (1989)
566 A.2d 202

AMERICAN EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE COMPANY, THE EMPLOYERS' FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND THE NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, APPELLANTS,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT. IN THE MATTER OF DETERMINATION OF EXCESS PROFITS AS TO AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY. WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE OHIO CASUALTY GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued September 19, 1989.
Decided October 23, 1989.

*429 Before Judges PRESSLER, LONG and LANDAU.

Elizabeth J. Sher argued the cause for appellants in Docket A-6166-87T2 (Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch, attorneys; Elizabeth J. Sher and David M. Fabian on the brief).

Richard R. Spencer, Jr. argued the cause for appellants in Docket A-364-88T2 (Stryker, Tams & Dill, attorneys; Bressler, Amery & Ross, of counsel; Mark L. Mucci on the brief).

Alan H. Bernstein argued the cause for appellants in Docket A-636-88T2 (Brach, Eichler, Rosenberg, Silver, Bernstein, Hammer & Gladstone, attorneys; Alan H. Bernstein and David S. Bernstein on the brief).

Joseph L. Yannotti, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent in Dockets A-6166-87T2, A-364-88T2 and A-636-88T2 (Peter N. Perretti, Jr., Attorney General, attorney; Michael R. Clancy, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Joseph L. Yannotti on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by LANDAU, J.A.D.

These are three separately docketed appeals by the insurance companies footnoted below[1] (Insurers) from final determinations made in 1988 by the New Jersey Commissioner of Insurance *430 (Commissioner) which directed each individual insurer to return excess profits to policyholders pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:29A-5.4 for the years 1985 through 1987.

We consolidated these appeals for opinion because they raised the common argument that the Commissioner violated the New Jersey Administrative Procedure Act (N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to 52:14B-15) by changing the method of evaluating excess profits from one which aggregated combined data and experience of a commonly owned group of insurers, to one which required calculation of the data for each affiliated insurer separately. The effect of the change was to negate the offset of poor financial results of one affiliate against the profits of another when calculating, under N.J.S.A. 17:29A-5.2 and 17:29A-5.3, the amount of excess profits to be redistributed to policyholders as required by N.J.S.A. 17:29A-5.4.

The applicable statutory excess profits scheme for private passenger automobile insurance companies was enacted as Chapter 357 of the Laws of 1983, codified as N.J.S.A. 17:29A-5.2 to 17:29A-5.5. The introductory statement to the legislation reads:

This bill requires private passenger automobile insurers to file with the Department of Insurance annual financial disclosure statements containing detailed information on the financial results of their operations in New Jersey.
This bill also establishes statutory standards for reporting and determining excess profits earned by insurers on private passenger automobile insurance in New Jersey, and for refunding any excess profits to policyholders.
Companies with less than 0.5% of the New Jersey private passenger automobile market are exempt from the financial disclosure provisions of this bill but not from the excess profits requirements.
This bill is modeled after the financial disclosure and excessive profits laws of the State of Florida.

L. 1983, c. 357, Introductory Statement.

The text of the statute is annexed as Appendix A hereto. An implementing regulation was made effective April 7, 1986 as N.J.A.C. 11:3-20.1. That regulation is annexed as Appendix B hereto.

*431 In 1988, the Legislature repealed N.J.S.A. 17:29A-5.2 to 17:29A-5.5, and substituted N.J.S.A. 17:29A-5.6 to 17:29A-5.16 as an excess profits statute for private passenger automobile insurance carriers. N.J.S.A. 17:29A-5.7, which is part of that act, provides that:

A separate profits report shall be filed for each insurer and each insurer in an insurance holding company system. Each insurance holding company system shall file a separate combined profits report for all insurers in its system. The excess profits computation for an insurance holding company system shall be performed on its combined profits report, except that the commissioner may order an adjustment in the combined profits report if in his judgment, upon examining each insurer's profits report in the insurance holding company system, one or more of the insurers in that system are excessively subsidizing other insurers in that system.

On May 15, 1989, regulations were adopted, codified under the same section numbers as the 1986 regulations, i.e., N.J.A.C. 11:3-20.1 to .10. These regulations are consistent with the policy of the 1988 legislation as to excess profits reporting. N.J.S.A. 17:29A-5.9 sets the due date for the first profits report required by the 1988 Act as July 1, 1989.

Thus, the consolidated matters before us affect only reporting and excess profits assessment in 1988, the limited period between the change in policy as to excess profit calculations of group affiliated insurers and adoption of the 1988 statute.

It is not disputed that in 1986 and 1987 the Commissioner evaluated excess profits on an insurer-group basis. As noted, the 1986 version of N.J.A.C. 11:3-20.1 to .10 expressly set forth that reporting methodology. Moreover, the Department of Insurance prescribed reporting forms which recognized the group-wide data submissions.

On May 27, 1988, without prior notice, the Commissioner ordered that the reporting for excess profit purposes must henceforth be filed only on an individual insurer basis. When assessments of excess profits were later made on that basis as well, these appeals followed.

We reverse because we agree that modification of the previous administrative policy on excess profits, a policy consistent *432 with the reporting regulations, should have been effected through the rule-making procedures of N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to 52:14B-15. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-2(e) provides:

"Administrative rule" or "rule," when not otherwise modified, means each agency statement of general applicability and continuing effect that implements or interprets law or policy, or describes the organization, procedure or practice requirements of any agency. The term includes the amendment or repeal of any rule, but does not include: (1) statements concerning the internal management or discipline of any agency; (2) intraagency and interagency statements; and (3) agency decisions and findings in contested cases.

The term "insurer" was not specifically defined in the 1983 legislation, but was defined in the 1986 implementing regulations and forms to include a group of affiliated insurers. See Appendix B, N.J.A.C.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Metromedia, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation
478 A.2d 742 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1984)
American Employers' Insurance v. Commissioner of Insurance
566 A.2d 202 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
566 A.2d 202, 236 N.J. Super. 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-emp-ins-v-comr-of-ins-njsuperctappdiv-1989.