(California Court of Appeal) - In a challenge to the California Insurance Commissioner's denial of an application filed by an insurer-plaintiff to increase its homeowners' insurance rates, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed over the insurer's meritless arguments that: 1) the superior court erred in interpreting and applying section 2644.10(f) with regard to what constitutes institutional advertising expenses; 2) California Code of Regulations section 2644.10(f) violates the First Amendment to the U.
S. structure because the regulation imposes a content-based financial penalty on speech; and 3) the commissioner and the superior court erred in determining that plaintiff did not qualify for the constitutional variance because the commissioner and the court wrongfully applied a 'deep financial hardship' standard instead of a 'fair return' standard.
Source: findlaw.com