State ex rel. Consumers League of Ohio v. Ratchford
| Decision Date | 30 December 1982 |
| Citation | 457 N.E.2d 878,8 Ohio App.3d 420,8 OBR 544 |
| Parties | , 8 O.B.R. 544 The STATE, ex rel. CONSUMERS LEAGUE OF OHIO et al., v. RATCHFORD, Supt., et al. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. R.C. 3918.07(B) imposes a mandatory legal duty upon the Superintendent of Insurance to disapprove a policy of credit life insurance within thirty days of its filing, if its premium rates violate the standards of either subdivisions (C)(1) or (C)(7) of Ohio Adm.Code 3901-1-14.
2. Where a policy's premium rates are deemed prima facie reasonable under subdivision (C)(1) of Ohio Adm.Code 3901-1-14 at the time of filing, if experience later proves a violation of subdivision (C)(7) of the regulation, then the regulation imposes a mandatory legal duty upon the superintendent to exercise the discretion granted him by that subdivision of the regulation, and by R.C. 3918.07(D), to proceed against the company.
3. Standing requires demonstration of concrete injury in fact, rather than an abstract or suspected injury. Demonstration of injury in fact is limited to those situations where an individual can show he has suffered or will suffer a specific injury even if slight, from the challenged action or inaction, and that this injury is likely to be redressed if the court invalidates the action or inaction.
Carolyn L. Carter, Cleveland, Marcia Brehmer, Columbus, and David Cleveland, Cleveland, for relators.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., Roger P. Sugarman, Thomas W. Hess and Timothy R. Parry, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondents.
According to stipulated facts, relator, Consumers League of Ohio, is a voluntary membership association, many of whose members have in the past and will likely in the future purchase credit life insurance. Relator, Donald Zahnke, has purchased credit life insurance in the past and expects to do so in the future. Relators demanded in writing of respondents that they require insurers to reduce credit life insurance premiums rates or show cause why their rates should not be reduced. If premium rates for credit life insurance had been reduced to effect a fifty percent loss ratio for 1977 through 1979, Ohio consumers could have purchased the same amount of credit life insurance at a savings of $71,438,000, or an average of $23,812,667 per year.
Relators seek a writ of mandamus ordering respondents to require those credit life insurance companies which have paid less than fifty percent of premiums in benefits, to make appropriate rate reductions or show cause why their premium rates should not be reduced. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that relators have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Respondents also filed a motion seeking leave to file supplemental exhibits consisting of an affidavit and letter from an actuary. The motion is overruled. The affidavit and letter do not meet standards for admissible evidence and do not conform to Section 7 of our Local R. 11. Even were the exhibits admitted into evidence, their contents would not be critical to our decision.
In order to grant a writ of mandamus, we must find that relators have a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, that respondents are under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and that relators have no plain and adequate remedy at law. State, ex rel. Montrie Nursing Home v. Aggrey (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 121, at 126, 407 N.E.2d 485 . The most perplexing issue to be addressed in this case is whether respondents are under a clear legal duty to perform the requested official act. Central to our consideration of that issue are provisions of R.C. 3918.07 and Ohio Adm.Code 3901-1-14:
It is well-settled that an agency is required to follow its own regulations. See Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. Glander (1948), 149 Ohio St. 120, at 126, 77 N.E.2d 921 ; Lawrence v. Leach (1964), 120 Ohio App. 411, at 414, 202 N.E.2d 703; State, ex rel. Cincinnati, v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm. (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 287, 441 N.E.2d 829.
Among the facts stipulated by the parties are those which clearly establish that insurers, in writing credit life insurance, are producing a loss ratio of less than fifty percent. Respondents argue that the loss ratio exceeds fifty percent when premium rates for both credit life insurance and credit accident and health insurance are aggregated together as a single "class of business" and that, therefore, the superintendent is under no duty to act under Ohio Adm.Code 3901-1-14(C)(7). This argument is demonstratively captious when the language of the regulation and of stipulated evidence is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Camp St. Mary's Assn. v. Otterbein Homes
...be compensable, the injury must be concrete and not simply abstract or suspected." Id., citing State ex rel. Consumers League of Ohio v. Ratchford (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 420, 424, 457 N.E.2d 878. {¶ 27} The claims, which were apparently brought on behalf of the association's members, are bre......
-
MOORE V. CITY Of MIDDLETOWN, CASE NO. CA2009-08-205
...stake in the outcome of a justiciable controversy to obtain a judicial resolution of that controversy." State ex rel. Consumers League of Ohio v. Ratchford (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 420, 424. {¶48} A person has standing to sue only if he or she can demonstrate injury in fact, which requires sho......
-
City of Cincinnati v. Reed, s. C-840714
...shaped, in part, by this foundational requirement of standing has been described recently in State, ex rel. Consumers League of Ohio v. Ratchford (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 420, 457 N.E.2d 878, where a unanimous court dismissed a petition for a writ of mandamus due to an absence of standing on t......
-
State ex rel. Rodenberg v. Garvas
...demonstration of a concrete injury in fact, rather than an abstract or suspected injury." State ex rel. Consumers League of Ohio v. Ratchford (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 420, 8 OBR 544, 457 N.E.2d 878, paragraph three of the syllabus. However, it is not necessary that the person violate the statu......