Download PDF - Goodmans

usiness. Thereafter, an order of liquidation was entered against the insurers in
their respective states and the Louisiana Insurance Commissioner was
appointed ancillary receiver of the Missouri insurer. Both insurers then
excepted to subject matter jurisdiction and venue. The appellate court
affirmed the dismissal of the action based on lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The court noted that both Louisiana and Missouri have adopted
the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act and that the Act's "statutory scheme for
receiverships is comprehensive and exclusive" [emphasis by court].
Accordingly, all persons asserting claims, including the plaintiff state officials,
were required to file in the parish court in which the liquidations were pending,
or, in the case of the Missouri insurer, in the parish court in which the ancillary
receiver had been appointed. The Court rejected a claim that the objection
was to venue and had therefore been waived.
New Jersey
New York
Ballesteros v. New Jersey Property Liability Insurance Guaranty Association,
530 F. Supp. 1367 (D. N.J. 1982), affirmed, 696 F.2d 980 (3rd Cir. 1982). The
federal district court found that the New York Supreme Court had subject
matter jurisdiction to enter a rehabilitation order against an insurer located
outside the court's judicial district. Here, the insurance commissioner
petitioned for an order of rehabilitation against an insurer in the district where
the company was located. The broad jurisdiction of the court was deemed to
be neither qualified nor limited by the state legislature. The court found that
the provision requiring the commissioner to make an application in the judicial
district in which the principal office of the insurer involved is located dealt only
with venue and as such did not detract from the court's broad discretion.
Frontier Ins. Co. v. Big Apple Roofing Co., 855 N.Y.S.2d 702 (App. Div. 2008). The
court denied a motion for change of venue in a lawsuit filed by the insurer in
liquidation for indemnification under a performance bond, where the defendant
obligors who requested transfer failed to establish that convenience of material
witnesses would be promoted by a change of venue.
In re Board of Directors of Hopewell Internat’l Ins. Ltd., 275 B.R. 699 (S.D.N.Y.
2002). The directors of a foreign reinsurer in run‐off adopted a scheme of
arrangement providing that all disputes be submitted to binding arbitration in
Bermuda under Bermuda law. A petition for an ancillary case to aid in the
enforcement of the scheme of arrangement between the reinsurer in run‐off
and its creditors was properly venued in the Southern District of New York
where, among other things, the reinsurer’s principal assets in the U.S. were
located in New York.
Knickerbocker Agency, Inc. v. Holz, 4 N.Y.2d 245, 173 N.Y.S.2d 602, 149 N.E.2d
885 (1958). The New York Supreme Court, with the insurance commissioner as
its agent, was intended to have exclusive jurisdiction over claims against and
for an insurance company in liquidation under the insurance code. There is no
express provision requiring the commissioner to prosecute such claims only in
the state Supreme Court. However, in keeping with the overall scheme and
plan of the insurance code, the Supreme Court may not be divested of
jurisdiction in favor of an arbitration tribunal.
Ohio
Lerenman v. Ohio German Fire Ins. Co., 21 Ohio Dec. 269 (1910). Although
jurisdiction may be obtained over a dissolved company in an action brought for
an accounting in other than the county in which its principal place of business is
located, such jurisdiction does not extend to the trustees individually who are
administering the affairs of the insolvent company, and therefore the court
correctly quashed service as to the trustees in their individual capacities.