State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lindsay

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lindsay

342 S.E.2d 599, 288 S.C. 327, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 325

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 7, 1986

Docket22521

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 342 S.E.2d 599 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lindsay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lindsay, 342 S.E.2d 599, 288 S.C. 327, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 325 (S.C. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Gregory, Justice:

Respondent State Farm petitioned for an 11.4% automobile insurance rate increase. The South Carolina Insurance Commissioner, Petitioner, denied the request. On appeal, the Circuit Court found the Commissioner had erred in not considering prospective losses of the South Carolina Reinsurance Facility and remanded the matter to the Commissioner. Petitioners appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court’s ruling. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Lindsay, 284 S. C. 472, 328 S. E. (2d) 80 (1984). This Court granted certiorari. We reverse the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

The sole issue presented is whether the Commissioner must utilize prospective losses of the Reinsurance Facility in determining rates. We conclude he does not because the applicable statute does not authorize consideration of such losses.

The South Carolina Reinsurance Facility, established in 1974, is a nonprofit organization which enables automobile insurers to obtain reinsurance for high risk drivers which they normally would not insure. See S. C. Code Ann. § 38-37-710 to 790 (1976). Since its inception, the Facility has operated at a loss. These losses are apportioned among automobile insurers based upon their use of the Facility.

*329 The Circuit Court and Court of Appeals relied on S. C. Code Ann. § 38-43-430(1) (1976). That section requires the Commission to consider “past and prospective loss experience” in establishing rates. This statute applies generally to all insurance rates. This reliance is misplaced.

In 1974, the General Assembly enacted Chapter 37 of Title 38, effecting “a complete reform of automobile insurance and insurance practices in South Carolina as the same pertain to individuals ...” S. C. Code Ann § 38-37-110 (1976). This chapter applies specifically to automobile insurance. Since it was enacted subsequent to Section 38-43-430(1) [enacted 1947], it is clear that Chapter 37 now exclusively controls individual automobile insurance.

S. C. Code Ann § 38-37-780 (1976) requires the Commissioner to consider “net gains and losses incurred by insurers as a result of participation” in the Facility in establishing rates. (Emphasis added.) Clearly, use of the word “incurred” mandates the conclusion that only past losses will be considered. Had the legislature desired to include prospective losses, they would have done so.

Accordingly, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The order of the Commissioner is reinstated.

Reversed.

Ness, C. J., and Harwell, Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur.

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

Gregory, Justice:

Respondent State Farm petitioned for an 11.4% automobile insurance rate increase. The South Carolina Insurance Commissioner, Petitioner, denied the request. On appeal, the Circuit Court found the Commissioner had erred in not considering prospective losses of the South Carolina Reinsurance Facility and remanded the matter to the Commissioner. Petitioners appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court’s ruling. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Lindsay, 284 S. C. 472, 328 S. E. (2d) 80 (1984). This Court granted certiorari. We reverse the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

The sole issue presented is whether the Commissioner must utilize prospective losses of the Reinsurance Facility in determining rates. We conclude he does not because the applicable statute does not authorize consideration of such losses.

The South Carolina Reinsurance Facility, established in 1974, is a nonprofit organization which enables automobile insurers to obtain reinsurance for high risk drivers which they normally would not insure. See S. C. Code Ann. § 38-37-710 to 790 (1976). Since its inception, the Facility has operated at a loss. These losses are apportioned among automobile insurers based upon their use of the Facility.

*329 The Circuit Court and Court of Appeals relied on S. C. Code Ann. § 38-43-430(1) (1976). That section requires the Commission to consider “past and prospective loss experience” in establishing rates. This statute applies generally to all insurance rates. This reliance is misplaced.

In 1974, the General Assembly enacted Chapter 37 of Title 38, effecting “a complete reform of automobile insurance and insurance practices in South Carolina as the same pertain to individuals ...” S. C. Code Ann § 38-37-110 (1976). This chapter applies specifically to automobile insurance. Since it was enacted subsequent to Section 38-43-430(1) [enacted 1947], it is clear that Chapter 37 now exclusively controls individual automobile insurance.

S. C. Code Ann § 38-37-780 (1976) requires the Commissioner to consider “net gains and losses incurred by insurers as a result of participation” in the Facility in establishing rates. (Emphasis added.) Clearly, use of the word “incurred” mandates the conclusion that only past losses will be considered. Had the legislature desired to include prospective losses, they would have done so.

Accordingly, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The order of the Commissioner is reinstated.

Reversed.

Ness, C. J., and Harwell, Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 S.E.2d 599, 288 S.C. 327, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-v-lindsay-sc-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack