were no overcharging. If USAA overcharged, the premiums paid for UM/ UIM coverage on additional vehicles were excessive. Whether premium rates are excessive is a question that directly implicates the reasonableness of rates. 1 82 We agree that plaintiffs' refund damage theory would require the trier of fact to determine the rate USAA could reasonably have charged for UM/UIM coverage on additional vehicles obtained post-DeHerrera. This is so because a total refund is not the measure of plaintiffs' actual injury for fraudulent inducement. As the trial court found, with record support, additional vehicle coverage provided class two coverage, which would have value to some USAA policy holders. 1 83 Such an assessment would invade the province of the DOI under section 10-4-408( 964-65 (<HOLDING>). 1 85 Accordingly, we conclude that the trial
holding that the respondents statelaw claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine holding that under the filed rate doctrine a question regarding reasonable rates should be addressed to the department of insurance and that the rate plaintiff was charged is conclusively presumed reasonable under the filed rate doctrine holding that fraudulent inducement renders a contract void or voidable holding that the filed rate doctrine precludes insureds fraudulent inducement claim holding that the filed rate doctrine barred private right of action for consumer fraud