The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation advised an appeals court yesterday it should not hold a rehearing on its decision allowing a regulator to suspend Allstate's ability to write new business, because the insurer gave it no grounds for such action.

OIR's argument, in a filing with the Florida First District Court of Appeals in Tallahassee, responded to the company's request Monday asking the First District to reexamine its suspension ruling.

Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty acted to halt the company from writing new business after it balked at handing over reams of documents he asked for prior to a hearing to examine an Allstate rate increase request and company business practices.

The OIR filed its papers with the appeals court shortly before a 5 p.m. deadline. The filing was made in response to a motion for rehearing filed Monday by Allstate, which argued the OIR suspension order should be suspended or overturned.

OIR said in its papers that a motion for rehearing under Florida law is supposed to state specifically "points of law or fact" that the party seeking a new hearing believes the court missed or misinterpreted in its initial ruling.

Allstate's motion "consists of 45 pages that primarily restate the case law and facts" contained in its earlier filings, OIR said.

OIR noted that Allstate's initial brief was only 37 pages, adding that "typically, a motion for rehearing is not lengthier than the initial brief."

The OIR further argued that the cases cited by Allstate in their appeal for a rehearing do not conflict with the court's ruling to uphold the suspension order.

"It would be of little benefit to the court for the OIR to reargue cases that have already been argued in the litigants' briefs," the OIR said in the response. "None of the cases" cited by Allstate, it added, "involved regulated entities who were required by statute to make documents freely available as a condition of doing business in the state of Florida or any other state."

Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty, according to OIR spokesman Ed Domansky, feels that the response filed by his office "speaks for itself."

The issue of the requirement to make documents "freely available" has been the core of the OIR's case throughout the ongoing dispute.

While state regulators believe Allstate is required to provide requested documents, they claim the company has failed to do so and have repeatedly cited a 196-page list of objections regarding certain documents the company has objected to producing.

Allstate in response says it is cooperating with the OIR and has provided over 400,000 pages of documentation since last October. The additional documentation being sought by the OIR, the company said, cannot be produced without violating attorney-client privilege that has been established by the court system.

The company has also argued that privileged material concerning trade secrets is involved.