2023 Connecticut General Statutes › Title 38a - Insurance › Chapter 701 - Personal and Commercial Risk Insurance Rating Practices › Section 38a-687. (Formerly Sec. 38-201w). - Existence of competitive market re personal risk insurance. Determination of competition. Hearing.

(a) With respect to personal risk insurance, a competitive market is presumed to exist unless the commissioner, after hearing, determines that a reasonable degree of competition does not exist in a market and issues a ruling to that effect. Any such ruling shall expire no later than three years after the date of issue unless the commissioner renews the ruling after hearing and a finding as to the continued lack of a reasonable degree of competition. After such ruling has been in effect for a period of at least one year but not exceeding two years, any insurance company may make written request to the commissioner for a hearing at which it or any of the insurance companies affected by the ruling may present evidence that competition exists in the affected market. The commissioner shall hold such hearing within sixty days after receipt of the request. He shall provide written notice of the time and place of the hearing to all insurance companies affected by the ruling at least fifteen days in advance of such hearing. The commissioner shall issue his findings within thirty days after such hearing. If the commissioner finds a continued lack of reasonable competition in the affected market, his original ruling shall remain in effect. If the commissioner finds that a reasonable degree of competition exists in the affected market, his original ruling shall expire immediately.
(b) In determining whether or not a reasonable degree of competition exists in a market pursuant to subsection (a), the commissioner may define that market in terms of a product market component and a geographic market component. The product market component shall consist of identical or readily interchangeable products including, but not limited to, consideration of coverage, policy terms, rate classifications and underwriting. The geographic market component shall consist of a geographical area in which buyers have a reasonable degree of access to the insurance product through sales outlets and other marketing mechanisms. In determining the geographic market component, the commissioner shall consider existing marketing patterns. The commissioner may consider relevant tests of workable competition pertaining to market structure, performance and conduct and the practical opportunities available to consumers in the market to acquire pricing and other consumer information and to compare and obtain insurance from competing insurers. Such tests may include, but are not limited to, the following: Size and number of firms actively engaged in the market; market shares and changes in market shares of firms, ease of entry and exit from a given market, underwriting restriction or results, investment income earned or realized by insurers from both their unearned premium and loss reserve funds for that market, availability of consumer information concerning the product and sales outlets or other sales mechanisms, and efforts of insurers to provide consumer information. The determination of competition involves the interaction of the various tests. The weight given to specific tests depends upon the particular situation and pattern of test results.
(c) In determining whether or not a competitive market exists pursuant to subsection (a), the commissioner shall monitor the degree of competition in this state. In doing so, he shall utilize existing relevant information, analytical systems and other sources, participate in or cause the development of new relevant information, analytical systems and other sources or rely on some combination thereof. Such activities may be conducted internally within the Insurance Department, in cooperation with other state insurance departments, through outside contractors or in any other manner deemed appropriate by the commissioner. For purposes of judicial review pursuant to the provisions of section 4-183, the determination of whether or not a competitive market exists shall be deemed to be a question of fact.
(d) For the purpose of determining whether a competitive market exists, the commissioner, in his discretion, may make such public or private investigations within or outside this state as he deems necessary.
(e) For the purpose of any hearing or investigation under sections 38a-663 to 38a-696, inclusive, the commissioner or any officer designated by the commissioner may administer oaths and affirmations, subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, receive oral and documentary evidence and require the production of any books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, agreements or other documents or records which the commissioner deems relevant or material to the inquiry.
(f) In case of a refusal of any person to comply with any subpoena issued hereunder or to testify with respect to any matter concerning which he may be lawfully interrogated, the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford, upon application by the commissioner, may issue an order requiring such person to comply with such subpoena or to testify. Failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the court as a contempt of court.
(g) No person may be excused from attending and testifying or from producing any document or record before the commissioner, or in obedience to the subpoena of the commissioner or any officer designated by him, or in any proceeding instituted by the commissioner, on the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty of forfeiture, provided no individual may be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he is compelled, after claiming his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, except that the individual testifying is not exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury or contempt committed in testifying.
(P.A. 82-353, S. 6, 26; P.A. 88-230, S. 1, 12; P.A. 90-98, S. 1, 2; P.A. 93-142, S. 4, 7, 8; P.A. 95-220, S. 4
–
6; P.A. 01-174, S. 16.)
History: P.A. 82-353, S. 6, effective July 1, 1983; P.A. 88-230 replaced “judicial district of Hartford-New Britain” with “judicial district of Hartford”, effective September 1, 1991; P.A. 90-98 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1991, to September 1, 1993; Sec. 38-201w transferred to Sec. 38a-687 in 1991; P.A. 93-142 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1993, to September 1, 1996, effective June 14, 1993; P.A. 95-220 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1996, to September 1, 1998, effective July 1, 1995; P.A. 01-174 amended Subsec. (e) to substitute reference to Sec. 38a-696 for Sec. 38a-697 and make a technical change for the purpose of gender neutrality.