With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in an actuarially sound manner in the future and maintain solvency.”). In addition, over 85,000 class members accounting for more than 10 percent of the class have already responded to and taken advantage of the settlement. Tr. 9. Moreove agreement whereby an insured was to receive payment from the insurance company or have premiums reduced in consideration for services provided, or to be provided to the insurance company, did not constitute a rebate if there was a legitimate obligation to perform services of value to the company....”). More specifically, insurance premium discounts given in the context of a lawsuit settlement have been treated as legal and proper under such statutes. See e.g., Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. Nello L. Teer Co., 179 F. Supp. 538 (M.D.N.C. 1960) (<HOLDING>); Cox v. Department of Insurance, 823 P.2d 177,

A: holding that insurance agents purchase of drinks for prospective insureds did not violate antirebate statute
B: holding that employees limited settlement of claims against third party did not extinguish claims of the insurer when employee and insurer had jointly filed suit against third party and settlement agreement provided that insurers claims would remain pending
C: holding that payment under settlement agreement between insurer and insureds concerning disputed premium claims was a compromise that did not violate antirebate statute
D: holding that an agreement between insurer and insureds whereby insurer reimbursed insureds for costs of providing insurers administrative services did not violate antirebate statutes where agreements were not offered as an inducement to purchase insurance and reimbursements were reasonable in comparison to services rendered
C.