Genworth Life Insurance Company v. New Hampshire Department of Insurance

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that rate-increase caps for long-term care insurance policies exceeded the Insurance Commissioner’s authority under RSA 415-D:12. The court concluded that the caps neither promoted premium adequacy nor protected policyholders in the event of substantial rate increases, making them ultra vires and invalid. The court reversed and remanded the trial court’s judgment for the New Hampshire Department of Insurance.

Holdings

1. The rate-increase caps did not promote premium adequacy because they deprived the Commissioner of discretion to approve increases exceeding the caps when necessary for insurers to cover anticipated claims costs over the life of their policies.
2. The rate-increase caps did not protect policyholders 'in the event of' substantial rate increases because they prevented substantial rate increases from occurring rather than regulating or protecting policyholders after such increases occurred.
3. The age-based premium-rate-increase caps exceeded the Commissioner's statutory mandate under RSA 415-D:12 and were therefore ultra vires and invalid.
4. The court did not address the constitutional Contract Clause and Takings Clause arguments because invalidating the regulations as ultra vires resolved the appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the age-based premium-rate-increase caps in the amended long-term-care-insurance regulations exceeded the Insurance Commissioner's authority under RSA 415-D:12.
2. Whether the amended regulations promoted premium adequacy as required by RSA 415-D:12.
3. Whether the amended regulations protected policyholders in the event of substantial rate increases as required by RSA 415-D:12.
4. Whether the regulations violated the State and Federal Contract Clauses or Takings Clauses.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded