RE: Mintel Question

Dan Perry ( dperry@unigard.com )
Tue, 1 Dec 1998 16:52:22 -0800

OK. The statement says, "Courts have consistently upheld statutory rate
standards regarding
insurance risk classifications, even though they are very general." I think
I see where the confusion lies. On one hand, it is generally true that
either an insurance company or rating bureau that comes up with a
classification plan is given the "benefit of the doubt" by the courts with
regard to the plan, unless it interferes with the law of the state in any
way or something similar. On the other hand, the above statement talks about
"statutory rate standards" being upheld by the courts, which in some sense
seems to be negated by my previous statement. However, statutory rate
standards are still being upheld by the courts in that they make sure that
the proposed class plan (by the insurer or rating group) is not in conflict
with the current laws on the books. If anything must give between statutory
rate standards and the proposed class plan, the proposed class plan would be
the first one to give.

I think I also see your point about the Shavers case. However, I do not
think this case directly contradicts the statement. The finding in the case
was that the entire Michigan no-fault law was found constitutionally
defective, and not specifically the part about classification plans (if that
made any sense). In other words, the statutory standards on classifications
were not directly challenged but the entire law was defective.

I will now ask anyone else out there in the study group if they have
anything else to add. I am planning on talking to my father this evening
about another legal issue, so I can also ask this question when I talk to
him.

Take care.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray.DeJaco@jmagroup.com [mailto:Ray.DeJaco@jmagroup.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 3:13 PM
To: Dan Perry
Cc: 'studygroup8'
Subject: RE: Mintel Question

I guess I still dont buy this as making 2) true . I still feel it makes it
false. The "party granted ratemaking initiative" and the "statutory
ratemaker" are not the regulator (they are the insurance company or rating
bureau). The courts sustain the
position of the party granted ratemaking initiative unless the law "
specifically" [not very generally] required or forbid a certain
classification and the rate is held in conflict with that law . P116 says
the North Carolina courts have consistently "rejected" [did not uphold]
attempt by the insurance commissioner to substitute his judgement about
risk classification system for that of the statutory ratemaker without
"specific" [not general] legislative authority.

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