Opinion ID: 1293583
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: specificity of commissioner's order

Text: Appellants next contend that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Commissioner complied with that portion of G.S. 58-124.21(a) which requires that [i]f the Commissioner after hearing finds that the filing does not comply with the provisions of this Article, he may issue his order determining wherein and to what extent such filing is deemed to be improper . . . . (Emphasis added.) In so holding, the Court of Appeals simply noted that the Commissioner in his order had set out 99 findings of fact and 32 conclusions of law and that such were sufficient compliance with the statute. Appellants argue that one of the purposes of G.S. 58-124.21 was to require the Commissioner's order to show exactly how much a filing is affected by a proposed deficiency in order to allow for effective judicial review and to reduce the long-standing necessity for constant remand to the Commissioner. Appellants correctly note that the sheer number of purported findings and conclusions in a Commissioner's order should not be determinative of the question whether the order complied with the statutory requirement. Appellants also note that their evidence clearly supported a 23.2% increase, that only a 6% increase was allowed by statute and that an error or errors totaling in excess of $30 million in overall loss experience would have to have been made in the filing in order to justify the Commissioner's rejection. Hence, appellants contend, the Commissioner has shown no justification for rejecting any of the proposed increases. It is obvious, as indicated by the extensive discussion in the first sections of this opinion, that the Commissioner rejected this proposed rate increase primarily on the basis of his finding that the data presented by the Rate Bureau was unreliable. Though we have held this basis of the Commissioner's order to be improper, based on the record before us, we think the Commissioner's order would be in compliance with G.S. 58-124.21 had the conclusion been justified that the data was indeed unreliable and had none of the other errors discussed in the preceding sections been committed. Hence, we find no merit in this assignment of error. However, appellants' point is well taken that the present statute requires the Commissioner to be mathematically specific in rejecting proposed rate increases and future orders should specify wherein and to what extent the proposed filings are deemed improper.