charges under the Act is a piecemeal and inefficient method of addressing these issues. This is, however, the system the Legislature has put in place for challenging insurance rates. 28 . An obvious exception to the requirement of first seeking a hearing before the Commissioner to establish an excessive charge would be those instances where an insurer charged a rate that was above the amount on file with or authorized by the Commissioner. It is arguable that the cause of action established through West Virginia Code §§ 46A-3-109 and 46A-5-101 was intended to cover instances of wrongful or unconscionable charges rather than inviting any ongoing inquiry into the reasonableness of insurance charges. See, e.g., Dunlap v. Friedman's, Inc., 213 W.Va. 394, 399, 582 S.E.2d 841, 846 (2003) (<HOLDING>). 29 . In the event that we are misinterpreting
holding that a deceptive practice consists of a material representation or omission that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances holding california ucl fal and clra claims depend on the common question of whether the labels at issue are unlawful unfair deceptive or misleading to reasonable consumers recognizing purpose of ccpa as protection of consumers from unfair illegal or deceptive acts holding that recovery under the north carolina unfair and deceptive trade practices act  is limited to those situations when a plaintiff can show that plaintiff detrimentally relied upon a statement or misrepresentation and he or she suffered actual injury as a proximate result of defendants deceptive statement or misrepresentation  holding that actual reliance is not required to establish injury under nc gen stat  5863151 2001 which governs the unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance