Perhaps Jim Long, North Carolina's insurance commissioner, kicked state Sen. Tony Rand's dog, or scratched the majority leader's shiny new car. Why else would Rand introduce legislation to strip Long of his power to rule on auto, home and workers' comp insurance rates? Or could it be that the insurance industry sought out Rand to scuttle a system that works fine for North Carolina customers -- and, by the way, for the bottom lines of insurance companies operating in the state. The bill is clearly a case of fixing what isn't broke. It should die quietly.

One would think that the insurance industry was being unfairly treated. It's not. An agency set up by the legislature, the N.C. Rate Bureau, represents the insurance industry when it decides that it deserves higher premiums. The bureau negotiates with the Department of Insurance. If no agreement is reached, the commissioner (Long has held the post since 1985) decides if increases are justified. The Rate Bureau appeals to the courts if it feels a request was wrongfully denied.

That's similar to the N.C. Utilities Commission, except that its separate agency, the Public Staff, represents customers, not utility companies. In both cases, though, the legislature made sure that both sides were represented in rate cases.

Rand's bill would replace that balanced system with one likely to have an anti-consumer tilt. First, a Superior Court judge would make initial rulings on rate disputes instead of the insurance commissioner. That's puzzling and nonsensical. An insurance commissioner presumably is an expert in rates, risks that companies undertake and other, often arcane matters that go into setting rates. He is bound by law to be evenhanded. Judges would have to quickly become experts. The insurance industry would be the winner, since it has large departments that can crunch numbers to favor its position.

Worse yet, the commissioner would have the burden of proving to the judge that a rate hike was excessive. Currently, the Rate Bureau must prove a request that was denied is in fact justified. Why should customers, represented by the insurance commissioner, have to carry that burden of proof, particularly since the industry seeks the hikes in the first place?

Rand complains that Long acts as an advocate for consumers, but where's the harm in that if companies are dealt with fairly? The companies have the Rate Bureau as their advocate. Also, there's no shortage of insurance carriers in the state. Insurers aren't complaining of low profits, and this year, a major auto insurer actually rebated money to its customers. Rand also implies that as an elected official, Long uses rate hearings to gain political points. But judges stand for election, too.

The industry chafes at Long's tendency to deny or at least trim rate hikes. But it can appeal. The Rate Bureau has done so only six times in Long's 22 years, and the courts have upheld him every time.

Rand's move is curious. And does he really wish to declare himself an enemy of consumers in "taking care" of insurers?

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.