- 20 -
V. Petitioner's Position
Consistent with this Court's holding in Western National,
petitioner maintains that the term "reserve strengthening" is an
insurance industry term of art with a clearly understood
technical meaning. As used in the insurance industry, petitioner
argues, "reserve strengthening" encompasses only those increases
in loss reserves that are attributable to nonperiodic,
significant changes in the assumptions and/or methodologies used
to establish such loss reserves. Because the increase in
petitioner's 1986 reserves for pre-1986 accident years occurred
without a change in methodology, petitioner contends that the
increase does not constitute "reserve strengthening".
Petitioner further argues that there is no need to consider
the legislative history to interpret the term "reserve
strengthening", because the term is unambiguous. Accordingly,
petitioner argues that the regulatory definition of "reserve
strengthening" is invalid to the extent that it treats all net
additions in 1986, to pre-1986 loss reserves, as "reserve
strengthening".
VI. Analysis and Conclusion
Despite respondent's cogent arguments to the contrary, we
hold that petitioner's reserve increases do not constitute
"reserve strengthening". The facts of Western National are
indistinguishable from the present case. Therefore, the doctrine
of stare decisis leads us to the same result. In each case, the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011