Commissioner of Insurance v. North Carolina Rate Bureau
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
124 N.C. App. 674 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996)
- Written by Genan Zilkha, JD
Facts
On February 1, 1994, the North Carolina Rate Bureau (Bureau) (plaintiff) filed a request to increase the rates of return for private passenger automobiles by 10.8 percent and for motorcycles by 22.4 percent. The commissioner of insurance of North Carolina (commissioner) (defendant) held a hearing. At the hearing, the commissioner calculated the rates of return using statutory accounting provisions (SAP) instead of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The commissioner supported his use of SAP with expert testimony and by citing to the appropriate statute. When determining the current cost and expense provisions, the Commissioner used an expert witness’s findings instead of the Bureau’s findings. Although there were inconsistencies between these findings, the commissioner relied only on the expert witness. Based on the commissioner’s SAP calculations, the rates of return would be reduced for automobiles by 13.8 percent and for motorcycles by 10.2 percent. The commissioner disapproved the Bureau’s request and reduced the rates of return based on the SAP calculations. The Bureau appealed, arguing that the commissioner should not have used SAP and that the commissioner’s calculations were not supported by material and substantial evidence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McGee, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
