With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in the policy. . . . The purposes of the statutes were to protect the solvency of the insurance companies, prevent unfair discrimination among insureds of the same class, avoid concentration of the market in a few insurance companies, and avoid unethical sales practices.” Tracy J. Bateman, Annotation, Insurance Anti-Rebate Statutes: Validity and Construction, 90 A.L.R.3th 213, 220 (1991). See also, Couch on Insurance §69:38 (3d ed. 1996) (“[Transactions which otherwise might appear to be rebates will not be so regarded under the statute if not done as an inducement to insurance.”). Courts have consistently held that anti-rebate statutes are not violated where an insured gives consideration for the rebate. See e.g., Julian v. Guarantee Life Insurance Co., 49 So. 234, 236 (Ala. 1909) (<HOLDING>); Associated Cal. Loggers Inc. v. Kinder, 168

A: holding that unsupported allegations by the secretary that time expended was excessive are insufficient to justify a reduction
B: holding that reduction in income resulting from voluntary employment decision does not require corresponding reduction in payor spouses support obligations even if decision was reasonable and made in good faith
C: holding that premium reduction was legal where the insured had given consideration for reduction
D: holding that any reduction in sentence constitutes substantial prejudice for purposes of strickland analysis
C.