Download PDF - Goodmans

granting specific performance of arbitration agreement and terminating
judicial action. Ohio Revised Code § 2505.02.
Fabe v. Farm & Ranch Life Ins., No. 88AP‐1027, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 3748
(Ohio Ct. App. Sept. 26, 1989). In Farm & Ranch Life Ins., plaintiff was
appointed as the Ohio ancillary receiver of the insolvent insurance company.
Plaintiff brought an action to recover for the benefit of the receivership estate
certain sums of money allegedly owed the insolvent insurance company.
Defendant counterclaimed alleging primarily an illegal seizure of funds. The
court held that since plaintiff was named in his official capacity as the
Superintendent of Insurance in the counterclaim, the relief requested was
against the state. Consequently, the counterclaim involved a civil suit for
money damages against the state and the Court of Claims had original,
exclusive jurisdiction. Dismissal of the counterclaim was therefore proper
pursuant to Civ. R. 12(B)(6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Ratchford v. Proprietors’ Insurance Company, 103 Ohio App. 3d 192, 658
N.E.2d 1127 (Franklin Cty. 1995). A liquidation court’s determination on a
disallowed claim is an appealable order under Ohio Code provision R.C.
2505.02. The court explained that a decision made by the liquidation court
affects a “substantial right made in a special proceeding”, thus granting the
plaintiff the right to appeal.
Pennsylvania
Brainard v. Foster, Civil Action No. 91‐5308‐5318, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3196 (E.D.
Pa. 1992). The Pennsylvania District Court's Memorandum and Order dismissed
without prejudice a suit brought by agents of an unlicensed insurance
company, American Independent Business Alliance Group ("AIBA"), in
liquidation to enjoin the Commonwealth's Insurance Commissioner and the
Department of Insurance from issuing a letter to other agents that threatened
revocation of the agent's license, the return of any commissions earned on the
placement of policies on AIBA's behalf and damages. Under Pennsylvania law,
agents are personally liable for such unlicensed insurance sales which are
considered "unlawful" regardless of whether they are received inadvertently.
The court dismissed the action and allowed the issuance of the letter because
it entitled agents to due process prior to license revocation and retrieval by the
Commissioner.
Foster v. Berwind Corp. Civil Action No. 90‐0857, 1991 U.S. Dist LEXIS 1988 (E.D.
Pa. 2/13/91). Pennsylvania District Court applied Pennsylvania choice of law
rules and Pennsylvania law to govern an action brought by the Pennsylvania
Commissioner of Insurance to pierce the corporate veil of a defunct Bermuda
subsidiary (Norad) and hold the defendant liable for reinsurance loss claims of
the insolvent Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Island Co. The court held that
Pennsylvania's interest in investigating the claims of its domiciliaries against its
own corporations outweighed Bermuda's interest in regulating its reinsurance
industry where the subsidiary is "exempt" because it does not "do business".
Texas Bard v. Charles R. Myers Ins. Agency, 839 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. 1992), reversing 811
S.W.2d 251 (Tex. App.‐‐San Antonio 1991). Receiver of insolvent Vermont
insurer sued insurance agents pursuant to correspondent's agreement for
payment of earned premiums. Defendants filed compulsory counterclaims,
which resulted in a jury award for defendants on the counterclaim. Receiver
claimed the Vermont liquidation order, which included injunctions against
maintaining counterclaims or other actions against the receiver in any court
other than the Vermont liquidation court, should have been enforced in the
Texas court under principles of full faith and credit and/or comity. Reversing a