GEICO insurance companies can’t dismiss a South Carolina lawsuit that demands they pay almost $70 million in back taxes and penalties, a federal judge ruled
in a case that could ultimately affect how insurance taxes are collected by cities in that state and others.
“…Municipalities clearly have the authority to enact ordinances authorizing MASC (the Municipal Association of South Carolina) to act as their admin
istrator for the purpose of administrating and collecting business license taxes from insurance companies,” U.S. District Judge Joseph Anderson wrote in his Nov. 12 order.
The Municipal Association contracts with almost all South Carolina municipalities to collect annual business license taxes equaling 2% of property-casualty insurers’
gross premiums. For the past seven years, six GEICO companies have paid at least a portion of that tax. But the insur
ance companies have not provided reconciliation reports that would verify the premiums and taxes per city, the Municipal Association said in its lawsuit.
MASC contends that GEICO companies failed to pay the full amount of taxes for 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024, and now owe more than $30 million in taxes and $39 million in penalties.
The association concluded that GEICO has underpaid its taxes because most other carriers that write similar numbers of policies in the state remit a larger am
ount of taxes each year, Robert Tyson Jr., the lawyer for MASC, told Insurance Journal.
“We could be wrong about it,” he said. “But until we get documentation from GEICO, we won’t know for certain.”
In September, GEICO attorneys asked the court to dismiss the suit, arg
Watch More Image Part 2 >>>
uing that the association is not authorized by law to collect delinquent taxes and penalties, nor to demand reconciliation data.
“Defendants do not challenge the broad powers of municipalities in this State, including the power to contract out c
ertain functions to third parties,” the judge explained. “Rather, Defendants dispute the scope of the powers which can be contracted out under Plaintiff’s cited statutory authority.”
After reviewing arguments in the case, though, the judge found that South Carolina’s constitution and statutes do not a
ppear to prohibit contracted third parties from taking steps to enforce their tax collections.
“Defendants’ contention that Subsection (E) limits the contracting authority to collecting taxes is not compelling,” the ju
dge noted. “The mere mention of the authority to contract for collection of taxes does not mean the General Assembly intended to limit the definition of such services to exclude delinquent taxes and penalties.”
The MASC has contracted with South Carolina cities for more than two decades to provide the tax service, Tyson said.
“It’s a benefit for the insurance companies and for the cities, becau
se there are 270 municipalities in the state and most have different deadlines on tax payments,” he said. “It’s difficult for insurance companies to keep up with that.”
Judge Anderson also noted that the statute of limitations on the litigation has not expired—because the clock ne
ver started ticking: GEICO companies repeatedly assured MASC that they would submit the documents.
“A defendant may be estopped from claiming the statute of limitations as a defense if some conduct or represen
tation by the defendant has induced the plaintiff to delay in filing suit,” the judge wrote, citing a 2001 court ruling.
The judge said GEICO may be right about one point: The Municipal
Association may have failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. But he noted that it’s premature to dismi
ss the suit at this stage on those grounds. No evidence so far has shown that MASC did not follow the rules or that GEICO asked for an assessment that would trigger an appeal process.