North Carolina § 58-36-25 - Appeal of Commissioner's order.

§ 58-36-25. Appeal of Commissioner's order.

Any order or decision of the Commissioner shall be subject to judicial review as provided in Article 2 of this Chapter. Whenever a Bureau rate is held to be unfairly discriminatory or excessive and no longer effective by order of the Commissioner issued under G.S. 58-36-20, the members of the Bureau, in accordance with rules and regulations established and adopted by the governing committee, shall have the option to continue to use such rate for the interim period pending judicial review of such order, provided each such member shall place in escrow account the purportedly unfairly discriminatory or excessive portion of the premium collected during such interim period. Upon a final determination by the Court, or upon a consent agreement or consent order between the Bureau and the Commissioner, the Commissioner shall order the escrowed funds to be distributed appropriately. If refunds are to be made to policyholders, the Commissioner shall order that the members of the Bureau refund the difference between the total premium per policy using the rate levels finally determined and the total premium per policy collected during the interim period pending judicial review, except that refund amounts that are five dollars ($5.00) or less per policy shall not be required. The court may also require that purportedly excess premiums resulting from an adjustment of premiums ordered pursuant to G.S. 58-36-20(b) be placed in such escrow account pending judicial review. If refunds made to policyholders are ordered under this subsection, the amounts refunded shall bear interest at the rate determined under this subsection. That rate, to be computed by the Bureau, shall be the average of the prime rates on the effective date of the filing and each anniversary of that date occurring prior to the date of the Commissioner's order requiring refunds, with the prime rate on each of the dates being the average of the prime rates of the four largest banking institutions domiciled in this State as of that date, plus three percent (3%). History (1977, c. 828, s. 6; 1979, c. 824, s. 4; 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 1027, ss. 3.1, 4; 1995, c. 517, s. 19.)