Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 10, § 2644.27 - Variance Request
(a)
A request that the maximum permitted earned premium or minimum permitted earned
premium should be adjusted is referred to as a "variance request."
(b) Requests for variances shall be filed
with the Rate Filing Bureau on pages 11a and 11b of the Prior Approval Rate
Application. All such variance requests shall specifically:
(i) identify each and every variance
request;
(ii) identify the extent
or amount of the variance requested and the applicable component of the
ratemaking formula;
(iii) set forth
the expected result or impact on the maximum and minimum permitted earned
premium that the granting of the variance will have as compared to the expected
result if the variance is denied; and
(iv) identify the facts and their source
justifying the variance request and provide the documentation supporting the
amount of the change to the component of the ratemaking
formula.
(c) Requests for
variances shall be filed at the same time as the prior approval application to
which it applies or after the filing of the rate application and before any
final determination regarding that application. Public notice of all variance
requests shall be provided as set forth in California Insurance Code Sections
1861.05(c)
and
1861.06.
(d) A variance request shall be deemed
approved sixty days after public notice unless:
(i) a consumer or a consumer's representative
requests a hearing within forty-five days of public notice and the Commissioner
grants the hearing, or determines not to grant the hearing and issues written
findings in support of that decision, or
(ii) the Commissioner on the Commissioner's
own motion determines to hold a hearing.
(e) Variance requests shall be determined in
conjunction with the related prior approval application or rate hearing
thereon.
(f) The following are the
valid bases for requesting a variance:
(1)
That the insurer should be allowed relief from the efficiency standard for bona
fide loss-prevention and loss-reduction activities as set forth below.
(A) The insurer meeting the qualifications
set forth below may obtain an increase in the applicable efficiency standard by
the amount of its "Allocated Costs" for its Special Investigations Unit ("SIU")
expense for the most recent year. The term SIU as used in this section has the
same meaning as that term has in Section
2698.30(o). The
term "Allocated Costs" means those costs set forth in subsection (iii) and
attributable to investigations of claims made on the line of insurance subject
to Insurance Code section
1861.05(b)
for which the variance is sought.
(i) An
insurer may recover its "Allocated Costs" for its SIU expenses only in its
approved rate filing for the line of insurance affected by the SIU
investigation costs.
(ii)
Affiliated insurers who utilize the same SIU unit may recover the portion of
their "Allocated Costs" for their SIU expenses attributable to investigations
of claims made on the line of insurance in the rate application only in one
approved rate application for the line affected by the Allocated SIU costs. The
term "Affiliated Insurers" has the same meaning as that term has in Insurance
Code Section
1215.
(iii) The only recoverable SIU expenses are
those expended for investigators whose sole duties are investigation of
insurance fraud, software dedicated solely to analysis of data for indications
of insurance fraud, training of employees whose sole duty is the investigation
of fraud and equipment to be used solely by the insurer's SIU. The recoverable
expenses do not include the costs of employing or other costs for adjustors or
underwriters.
(iv) The only
recoverable SIU expenses are for SIU's dedicated to investigation of insurance
fraud within the State of California or for the portion of an SIU's operations
within California. The burden of demonstrating the amount of SIU expenses, and
that those expenses are for the investigation of insurance fraud within the
State of California is the insurers.
(v) An insurer may recover the "Allocated
Costs" of retaining an independent contractor to perform SIU services as
described in sub-paragraph (iii). The variance shall be calculated by
multiplying the fees paid for the independent agency with whom the insurer
contracts by the percentage of referrals of claims made on the line of
insurance for which the rate application and variance application are made and
that the contracted agency investigates in California on behalf of the insurer
seeking the variance.
(vi) No
expense that is included within the Defense and Cost Containment Expense
portion of an insurer's rate application can be included in whole or in part as
the basis for a variance based on SIU expenses. The terms "Defense and Cost
Containment Expense" or "DCCE" when used with regard to any variance have the
same meaning as those terms have in section
2644.23(c).
(vii) An insurer that asserts that payments
to:
(1) an independent contractor;
or
(2) an SIU owned by an Affiliated
Insurer; or
(3) an SIU independent
of an insurer, but which is owned directly or indirectly, in whole or part by
the insurer applying for a variance or by an Affiliated Insurer, shall in its
variance request, provide the Department of Insurance with documentation
showing the costs of investigation for the purported "Allocated Costs" claimed
in the variance request. The payments constituting the basis for the variance
must be bona fide payments for investigation of individual
cases of suspected insurance fraud. It shall be the burden of the insurer to
demonstrate that the costs are bona fide costs for
investigation of insurance fraud in the State of
California.
(B)
An insurer meeting the qualifications set forth below will be allowed to
recover its expenses for the most recent year for dedicated loss prevention
programs such as brush clearance, driver education, risk management, hazard
mitigation or accident prevention. Loss prevention expenses do not include SIU
expenses under subsection (A).
(i) An insurer
may recover its "Allocated Costs" for its loss prevention expenses only in its
approved rate for the line of insurance affected by the loss prevention
expenses.
(ii) The insurer must
provide documentation detailing the loss prevention program, what additional
costs are being incurred and what losses are being prevented.
(iii) Recoverable loss prevention expenses
are those expended for employees whose duties are loss prevention, software
dedicated to loss prevention, and equipment to be used for loss prevention.
Recoverable loss prevention expenses do not include the routine and customary
costs of marketing or employing underwriters or adjusters.
(iv) The only loss prevention expenses
recoverable are for loss prevention programs dedicated to loss prevention in
the State of California or for the portion of the program within California.
The burden of demonstrating the amount of loss prevention costs, and that those
costs are expended for loss prevention in the State of California is on the
insurer.
(2)
That the insurer should be allowed relief from the efficiency standard due to
any or all of the following:
(A) Higher
quality of service, as demonstrated by objective measures of consumer
satisfaction; or
(B) Demonstrated
superior service to underserved communities, as defined in section
2646.6; or
(C) Significantly smaller or larger than
average California policy premium, including any applicable fees. These fees
include but are not limited to: policy fees, installment fees, endorsement
fees, inspection fees, cancellation fees, reinstatement fees, late fees, SR-22,
and other similar charges.
(3) That the insurer should be authorized
leverage factor different from the leverage factor determined pursuant to
section 2644.17 on the basis that the
insurer either writes at least 90% of its direct earned premium in one line or
writes at least 90% of its direct earned premium in California and its mix of
business presents investment risks different from the risks that are typical of
the line as a whole. The leverage factor shall be adjusted by multiplying it by
0.85. The surplus ratio in section
2644.22 shall likewise be divided
by 0.85. If an insurer writes at least 90% of its direct earned premium in one
line and writes at least 90% of its direct earned premium in California, the
insurer will only be authorized one leverage factor adjustment of
0.85.
(4) That the insurer should
be granted relief from operation of the efficiency standard for a line of
insurance in which the insurer has never previously written over $1 million in
earned premiums annually and in which the insurer has made or is making a
substantial investment in order to enter the market. Any such request shall be
accompanied by a proposed amortization schedule to distribute the start-up
investment.
(5) That the minimum
permitted earned premium should be lowered on the basis of the insurer's
certification, and the Commissioner's finding, that the rate will not cause the
insurer's financial condition to present an undue risk to its solvency and will
not otherwise be in violation of the law.
(6) That the insurer's financial condition is
such that its maximum permitted earned premium should be increased in order to
protect the insurer's solvency. Any application for authorization under this
subsection shall include:
(A) A showing of the
insurer's condition, based on generally accepted standards such as the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners' Insurance Regulatory Information
System;
(B) A plan to restore the
financial condition;
(C) A showing
that, consistent with the claimed condition, the insurer has reduced or
foregone dividends to stockholders or policyholders; and
(D) A plan to reduce rates once the insurer's
condition is restored, in order to compensate consumers for excessive
charges.
(7) That the
loss development formula in section
2644.6 does not produce an
actuarially sound result because
(A) There is
not enough data to be credible;
(B)
There are not enough years of data to fully calculate the development to
ultimate;
(C) There are changes in
the insurer's reserving or claims closing practices that significantly affect
the data; or
(D) There are changes
in coverage or other policy terms that significantly affect the data;
or
(E) There are changes in the law
that significantly affect the data; or
(F) There is a significant increase or
decrease in the amount of business written or significant changes in the mix of
business.
(8) That the
trend formula in section
2644.7 does not produce the most
actuarially sound result because
(A) There is
a significant increase or decrease in the amount of business written or
significant changes in the mix of business;
(B) There are not enough years of data to
calculate the trend factor;
(C)
There is a significant change in the law affecting the frequency or severity of
claims;
(D) It can be shown that a
trend calculated over a period of at least 4 quarters other than a period
permitted pursuant to section
2644.7(b) is more
reliable prospectively;
(E) There
are changes in the insurer's claims closing practices that significantly affect
the data; or
(F) There are changes
in coverage or other policy terms that significantly affect the
data.
(9) That the
maximum permitted earned premium would be confiscatory as applied. This is the
constitutionally mandated variance articulated in 20th Century v.
Garamendi (1994) 8 Cal.4th 216 which is an end result test applied to
the enterprise as a whole. Use of this variance requires a hearing pursuant to
2646.4.
(g) If there is
more than one actuarial analysis of a variance, each of which is based on
reliable data and utilizes methods which are shown by qualified expert evidence
to be generally accepted as sound by the actuarial community and the
appropriate methods for the particular variance, then the variance shall be
granted, denied or calculated utilizing the actuarial proposition that results
in the soundest actuarial result.
(h) Notwithstanding any other section of
these regulations, the aggregate total adjustment to the efficiency standard
for all variances combined shall not exceed the difference between the
insurer's most recent year total expense ratio excluding defense and cost
containment expenses and the efficiency standard.
Notes
2. Amendment filed 5-16-2008; operative 5-16-2008. Submitted to OAL for printing only pursuant to Government Code section 11340.9(g) (Register 2008, No. 20).
3. Change without regulatory effect amending subsections (d)(i)-(ii) filed 7-14-2021 pursuant to section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 2021, No. 29). Filing deadline specified in Government Code section 11349.3(a) extended 60 calendar days pursuant to Executive Order N-40-20.
Note: Authority cited: Sections 1861.01 and 1861.05, Insurance Code; and 20th Century v. Garamendi, 8 Cal.4th 216 (1994). Reference: Sections 1861.01 and 1861.05, Insurance Code; and Calfarm Insurance Company v. Deukmejian (1989) 48 Cal.3d 805.
2. Amendment filed 5-16-2008; operative 5-16-2008. Submitted to OAL for printing only pursuant to Government Code section 11340.9(g)(Register 2008, No. 20).
3. Change without regulatory effect amending subsections (d)(i)-(ii) filed 7-14-2021 pursuant to section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 2021, No. 29). Filing deadline specified in Government Code section 11349.3(a) extended 60 calendar days pursuant to Executive Order N-40-20.
State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.
No prior version found.