Dan Perry <dperry@unigard.com> on 11/30/98 05:36:32 PM
To: Ray DeJaco
cc: 'studygroup8' <studygroup8@lists.casact.org>
Subject: RE: Mintel Question
Let me see if I can put it another way. In the first full paragraph on page
114, it says, "Although past judicial treatment of risk classification
issues has been somewhat variable, most of the court decisions sustain the
position of the party granted ratemaking initiative unless the law
specifically required or forbids a certain classification and the rate is
held in conflict with that law. The statutory ratemaker is usually a rating
bureau of individual insurer." Then at the end of the paragraph it is
mentioned that a recent case demanded more specific legislative direction
while preserving the role of the statutory ratemaker (and then they talk
about the Shavers case). I think this case was basically an exception to
the
overall rule. On page 116, in the fourth paragraph, it says, "In most other
cases dealing with insurance risk classification systems courts have
sustained the decisions of the statutory ratemaker by deferring to
legislative power without demanding more specific legislative action."
I hope this is helpful, or maybe I am missing the boat on this as well. Let
me know what you think.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray.DeJaco@jmagroup.com [mailto:Ray.DeJaco@jmagroup.com]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 11:20 AM
To: Dan Perry
Cc: 'studygroup8'
Subject: RE: Mintel Question
I'm sorry Dan, I guess I need clarification - I just got around to checking
these pages and I still can't find the reference for number 2 on page 115.
How is anything on this page saying 2) is true.:(courts have consistently
upheld statutory rate standards regarding insurance risk classifications,
even though they are very general). I still see the Shavers case as saying
just the opposite.
Dan Perry <dperry@unigard.com> on 11/19/98 11:05:42 AM
To: Ray DeJaco
cc: 'studygroup8' <studygroup8@lists.casact.org>
Subject: RE: Mintel Question
Ray, I found the following page references:
1. p. 133 (Mintel Chapter 8)
2. p. 115 (actually right above the paragraph dealing with the Shavers
case)
3. p. 131.
I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you need clarification.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray.DeJaco@jmagroup.com [mailto:Ray.DeJaco@jmagroup.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 1998 7:40 AM
To: Lou_Brown@ncci.com
Cc: studygroup8@lists.casact.org
Subject: Re:
I was looking over last years test. #19 is from Mintel. Apparently 1,2, &
3 are all true but I cant find the items in the reading. Can anyone else
pinpoint the page that these items are stated? In fact, wouldn't the
Shavers v. Kelley case discussed on page 115 contradict 2) being true
(courts have consistently upheld statutory rate standards regarding
insurance risk classifications, even though they are very general)
Lou_Brown@ncci.com on 11/12/98 09:01:16 AM
To: Kevin Weathers <kevweath@yahoo.com>
cc: studygroup8@lists.casact.org (bcc: Ray DeJaco)
Subject:
I guess I must be because I left the study group 9 list and joined the
study group 8 one. I hate preparing this early, especially before the
holidays, but part 8 is a killer.
Kevin Weathers <kevweath@yahoo.com> on 11/11/98 09:31:54 PM
To: Study Group <studygroup8@lists.casact.org>
cc: (bcc: Lou Brown/BOCA/NCCI)
Subject:
So is there anyone else out there trying to leave the fall exams
behind and look toward the future???
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com