The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1918-02-19
Shackelford Measu Legaliz-
ing Rate king Under State
Supervision Gains Favor
WITHDRAWAL THREAT
FAILS TO IMPRESS
MEMBERS OF HOUSE
Committee Which Originally
Passed by Proposal to Reeu-
late Fire Risks Begins to
lake Another View

II the proposed antitrust Law now
pending before tho general assembly
shall he legally interpreted 10 include
IRE insurance companies In It's inhi5i-
lions against con- eines and pools for
fixing joint rates, the Insurance COM
pantes of the state may yet be clad
To seek refuge in the Shackeiford rate
nxing bill which they have hitherto
opposed The shackeIforc bill ex-
7ressly iesauyes the reto-hxing bu-
yeaus
However. that may oe. the demand
for RELIEF from discriminatory fire
fnsurane rates will NOT down. Not
withstapdlng that the house com
znittee yesterday AZ the hearing on
voted hy n majority a sir TO a-r to
pass by the Shackelford bin the mat
ter came IN again before the COM
mittee yesterda 1T he hearing on
Deierate Norris bill making II Illegal
Tor Insurance -o1npa n.ee 10 combine
Tor rate MAXIM. purposes
The committee voted te pass BY the
bill irde auitely thus dIsrosfnr Of the
last Of the insurance tbs aimed ST
the correction OF this condition which
many counties corr plain -
\ determined e'fnrt VII now he
made 20 take tn matter W tn some
other form Deicea'e Norris "a dis
posed ,o faver the Shacketfnrd Nsu
and il Is understood the two gentle
flen with thor mem Sers az he house
will cooperate ia an EFFORT ~ secure
legislation az IN rs session
Opinion Ird''rs.ocs Changes
There. has hser a decided change
Of opinion since lasi week whom the
committee wss induced 30 kin the bin
ON representation ny some Insurance
men that bec8usc OF war conditions
nothtn. sh"u be done at this time
70 disturb rates.
Some Of the oppon 'nts or the
Ehackelford hH} made g considerable
Impression on the committee by az
serttns that leG+slatjoa along these
lines might result In fire insurance
companies Withdrawing from the
rtate.
This has been met ard answered ny
the friends az the insurance meas
ures to the effect that they believed
his was caOouAaFe. that 10 such
probability really existed, but that IN
the remote ross hiItty Of such a de-
veiopment, the state would he amply
able 10 meet she situation by provid-
ing It's own insurance. That this
EGut1 We dnNe successfully AnG PROV
ably at lower than exist .nS rates. It
was claimed, is suhsta inflated by the
fact that a few hupdred farmers c0n
get together and by cooperative ef-
fort carry their own risks al lower
rates than the ola line companies
The state itself. Il ia pointed out.
X preparing n eu4bsrfy on a policy o.
&ate iNe7tra1cc fhr all ~- t*e ins 'tv-
tons. - Siic schools anI county ara
city property, The aE reggie Of THIS
risk runs into very laV9e figures II
Is provided for IN a measure now
pending in the general assembly.
The proponents OF the bill for con-
troll Of insurance rates and elimina-
ton OF discriminatory rates, how
sver, do not advocate state insurance.
They simply point 20 II as a remedy II
II should develop that II became
necessary.
Would Regulate Rates.
IT was explained 10 the committee
that the Shackslford bill legallzes tho
existing rating bureaus such az the
Southeastern bureau and others Il
requires. however. that such rating
bureaus and insurance companies
must Ale their rates annually with
the commissioner Of insurance. and
authorizes the commissioner 20 reg
ulate said rates. II provides for uni
1prrn,tx OF rates for the same class Of
risks in like areas OF the state II
gives the insurance companies an op-
portunitv to be heard before a sched-
ule OF rates Is changed. and also
gives them the right of appeal to the
corpora ton commission, and fur
Their appeal to the supreme court.
n was pointed out that the dis
<-rimfnatitsN against some counties by
reason OF higher rates for the same
cla~~ea Of property not only worked a
hardships on the policyholders. but
rnitigated -aga'wt the growth and de-
Yeiopment OF those counties.
It was further potrted out that
some elpht or ten states are already
operating under law practically the
same as that provided for In the
shaekelford bill. and that the COM
panies show no indication OF wishing
TO leave those states. that thev seem
TO be doing a prosperous business un-
der existing conditions. Texas. PENN
syIvania Wisconsin and MichiSan.
were some ~ the states mentioned In
this connection.
In cross examining representatives
of tn, FIRE insurance companies before
the committee. Delegates Norris and
Shackelford brou~ht out the adnis-
sion from practically all OF them that
the discrimination did exist. that II
rhouid be corrected and that they
cbuid suggest no better way OF cor
recting II than planned In the pro-
poseS bill.
Neither could the representatives of
the insurance companies point TO the
name OF a single company to leave
the state under the old Wharton law,
a really drastic anti-poolins law. one
that expressly prohibited insurance