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
holding that unsupported allegations by the secretary that time expended was excessive are insufficient to justify a reduction 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 holding that any reduction in sentence constitutes substantial prejudice for purposes of strickland analysis holding that premium reduction was legal where the insured had given consideration for reduction holding that the collateralsource statute requires a reduction of the judgment only for payments made prior to the verdict