Court Opinion

ID: 9609847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:32:23.058865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:17.463791
License: Public Domain

Gunter, Justice,
dissenting.
I am of the opinion that under the Georgia Insurance Code the Insurance Commissioner can prohibit the implementation of filed insurance rates only if he finds such rates to be excessive, inadequate, discriminatory, or violative of Chapter 56-7 of the Georgia Insurance Code relating to unfair trade practices.
In this case the Insurance Commissioner attempted to prohibit the implementation of the filed rates merely for the reason that the insurer failed to give consideration to the impact of the "energy crisis” in arriving at its rates to be charged policyholders effective January 1,1974. The Insurance Commissioner made no finding that the filed rates were excessive, inadequate, discriminatory, or violative of Chapter 56-7 relating to unfair trade *147practices.
I think the Insurance Commissioner must find one of these four elements to exist before he can prohibit the implementation of rates filed with him. To hold that the Insurance Commissioner can prohibit the implementation of rates just because the rate-maker did not take some clear or nebulous factor into consideration in devising the rates, without a further finding that because of this deficiency the rates are excessive, inadequate, or discriminatory, is, in my opinion, a disservice to the public, insurers, and the office of the Commissioner.
Although Code Ann. § 56-507 is entitled "Standards Applicable To Rates,” it is clear to me that the first sentence of subsection (a) does not set forth a standard. It clearly enunciates a prohibition. Subsection (e) likewise, as I read it, does not set forth a standard. It establishes a prohibition.
The second and third paragraphs of subsection (a) and all of subsections (b), (c), and (d), as I read them, establish standards.
I think the standards were devised and written to enable the rate-maker, the Commissioner, and the judiciary to determine whether the filed rates are excessive, inadequate, discriminatory, or constitute unfair trade practices. In other words, filed rates can be prohibited only if they conflict with one of the four prohibitions.
Since the Insurance Commissioner’s order did not hold the filed rates in conflict with at least one of these four statutory prohibitions, I think his order was illegal and was properly so held by the trial court.
It follows that I would affirm the judgment below.
I respectfully dissent.