State commissioner rejects bid for insurance rate increase

By on January 5, 2018

Rates would have been higher for houses on the coast. (Voice)

A request for rate increases reaching 25 percent along the coast was turned down by the state insurance commissioner and has been scheduled for a July 23 hearing.

The North Carolina Rate Bureau, which represents the industry, had asked for an average 18.7-percent hike statewide, with increases even higher in coastal counties. Western counties would have seen a much lower increase, according to the state Department of Insurance.

“We are not in agreement with the Rate Bureau’s proposed increases filed Nov. 17, 2017. The next step, according to statute, is to set a hearing date,” Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey said in a statement Friday.


“After hearing and reading the more than 9,000 comments from residents across the state and studying the figures in the filing, it is now necessary to hold a hearing to reach a resolution that will make the most financial sense for our residents and insurance companies.”

The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. in the Second Floor Hearing Room in the Albemarle Building, 325 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh.

Here’s how the Department of Insurance describes the process:

The hearing will be held unless the N.C. Department of Insurance and N.C. Rate Bureau are unable to negotiate a settlement before that date. State law gives the Insurance Commissioner 45 days to issue an order once the hearing concludes. This means the order could be issued in October 2018.

Once the order is issued, the NCRB has the right to appeal the decision before the N.C. Court of Appeals. A Court of Appeals order could then be appealed to the N.C. Supreme Court.


The NCRB and DOI can settle the proposed rate increase at any time during litigation.

An order of no change resulted from the last request for an increase, which was in 2014. In 2012, a request for a 17.1 percent increase was reducd to 7 percent, which took effect in 2013.



  • surf123

    Could the author follow up with an explanation of these rate increases affect those on the coast. We all have three policies (wind & hail, flood, and homeowner’s). Since the homeowners policy excludes the two highest risk items leaving the homeowners policy to cover fire, theft, liability, loss of use and some miscellaneous items. These are minimal risk items when compared to the inland policies that cover wind & hail. When I saw a few weeks ago the insurance companies asked for a 68.7% increase and then reduced it to 25%. If the insurance companies want increases like this they should cover wind & hail and push the responsibility off on the NCIUA.

    Friday, Jan 5 @ 4:38 pm
  • Sam Walker

    See our previous stories on the breakout of the wind and hail portion…

    Sunday, Jan 7 @ 5:04 pm
  • John Kleis

    So coastal residents get punished due to their geographical location….huh! Ya ever think about their economical contribution to the states economy? You have a tourism industry and a commercial and sporting fishing industry and a farming community. Ya know what they say…”no farms…no food.” I’m not an economist,but maybe just flat rating the state would be most fair. People on the coast travel inland for many reasons as well as mountain folk go to the beach. So for the most part we all use all of the state. So….maybe all us tar heels should just share and share alike. One flat rate.

    Sunday, Jan 7 @ 11:40 pm
  • Bud

    Corruption that is in your face and out in the open. How many ways can we degrade laws and morals for the benefit of corporations and the wealthy?

    Thursday, Jan 11 @ 7:03 am
Recent posts in this category