You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Golden Rule Insurance Co. v. Department of Insurance

Citations: 606 So. 2d 1233; 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10828; 1992 WL 280774Docket: No. 91-2918

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 14, 1992; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Golden Rule Insurance Company (Golden Rule) appealed an administrative order from Insurance Commissioner Tom Gallagher that approved its rate revision filing effective as of the date of the final order. The appeal contested the Commissioner's decision not to approve the filing retroactively, as recommended by a hearing officer, arguing that it should have been deemed approved 30 days after submission in accordance with section 627.410, Florida Statutes. However, Golden Rule acknowledged during oral arguments that even if the deemer provision had been applied, the rate revision could not be made retroactive. Consequently, the court found the appeal moot and dismissed it, clarifying that the dismissal should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the Commissioner’s interpretation of the statute. The appeal was dismissed with the concurrence of Judges Shivers, Zehmer, and Kahn.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of Deemer Provision under Section 627.410, Florida Statutes

Application: Golden Rule Insurance Company argued that its rate revision filing should have been deemed approved 30 days after submission pursuant to this provision. However, they conceded the provision could not make the rate revision retroactive.

Reasoning: The appeal contested the Commissioner's decision not to approve the filing retroactively, as recommended by a hearing officer, arguing that it should have been deemed approved 30 days after submission in accordance with section 627.410, Florida Statutes.

Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Orders

Application: The dismissal of the appeal was expressly noted not to be an endorsement of the Insurance Commissioner’s interpretation of the statute.

Reasoning: The appeal was dismissed with the concurrence of Judges Shivers, Zehmer, and Kahn, clarifying that the dismissal should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the Commissioner’s interpretation of the statute.

Mootness of Appeal

Application: The court found the appeal moot because Golden Rule acknowledged that even if the deemer provision applied, it would not result in a retroactive rate revision.

Reasoning: However, Golden Rule acknowledged during oral arguments that even if the deemer provision had been applied, the rate revision could not be made retroactive. Consequently, the court found the appeal moot and dismissed it.