Unfortunately I think the article is misleading, but maybe not intentionally so. The problem is with the underlying SC report that implies that 979 firms are writing coverage in SC. I would be surprised if even a third of that number actually had premium written. Just a guess: the report uses the higher number because it sounds impressive.
If someone has the relevant actual figure for firms with written WC premium, please post as a comment.
Unfortunately I think the article is misleading, but maybe not intentionally so. The problem is with the underlying SC report that implies that 979 firms are writing coverage in SC. I would be surprised if even a third of that number actually had premium written. Just a guess: the report uses the higher number because it sounds impressive.
If someone has the relevant actual figure for firms with written WC premium, please post as a comment.
Unfortunately, many of the blue states have unstable WC markets. Ask FFA how Illinois is doing these days.