Download PDF - Goodmans

Honeywell’s appeal, the Circuit Court initially affirmed the new trial ruling in
Honeywell, Inc., et al. v. Minnesota Life and Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n., 86 F.3d
766 (8 th Cir. 1996).
In the appeal reviewed here, the Court granted review en banc. The Court
found that the retroactive application Honeywell challenged was
constitutional. It was justified by rational legislative purpose: regulating the
insurance industry and fixing a drafting defect in the earlier version of the
statute that could have left many state residents without coverage.
Furthermore, the Court found that Honeywell had no contractual right to the
property or right to compensation for its property. The rights involved were
statutory, not contractual. The Court affirmed its earlier holding.
Honeywell’s Motion for Reconsideration before the District Court was
denied.
Alabama
Delaware
Florida
Louisiana
Hilgeman v. State ex rel. Payne, 374 So.2d 1327 (Ala. 1979). Where claim filed in
a receivership proceeding was contingent upon a case pending in federal
court. Any possible liability of the insolvent insurer in that federal case would
arise from acts committed prior to January 1, 1982. Noting the liquidation law
bars contingent and unliquidated claims in liquidation proceedings, the court
held that such provisions did not apply in this case because insurance code
preserves rights accruing before January 1, 1982.
State v. National Automobile Ins. Co., 290 A.2d 675 (Del. Ch. 1972). Automobile
driver and passengers of the car filed claims against the other driver's insurer,
which was in receivership in Delaware. The claimants had already obtained
judgments in Ohio and were trying to enforce them in Delaware. The receiver
argued that the insurance code barred recovery against the insurer. The court
held, however, that recovery was not barred because the law did not become
effective until eight years after the appointment of the receiver, and nothing in
the law called for retroactive application.
Springer v. Colburn, 162 So.2d 513 (1964). The court held that the provision in
the Florida insurance code barring a proceeding in the nature of a garnishment,
attachment, or execution would be given prospective effect only. The sheriff's
deed of sale of Florida real estate in satisfaction of a claim against a Michigan
insurer in liquidation on a policy entered into before passage of the Florida
statute would not be set aside because no Florida ancillary receiver had been
appointed. To set aside the deed would constitute unconstitutional
impairment of contract, since plaintiff would have inadequate substitute for
remedies available in Florida at time insurance contract was entered into.
Hopkins v. Howard, 930 So. 2d 999 (La. Ct. App. 2006). The issue addressed
by the court of appeals was whether the undefined term of “affiliate,” in the
1999 version of the net worth exclusion to the definition of “covered claims”
in the guaranty association statute, includes a parent corporation.
Reasoning that the net worth exclusion employs an accounting concept of
consolidated net worth, the court of appeals held that if, for accounting
purposes, a parent and its subsidiary are considered to be a single economic
unit, then two entities are affiliates for purposes of the net worth exclusion
of the guaranty association statute.
S. Silica of La., Inc. v. La. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 979 So. 2d 460 (La. 2008). The state
supreme court explained that the exposure theory for mass torts, and its pro
rata component, applied to guaranty association coverage of the Louisiana
Insurance Guaranty Association (“LIGA”). LIGA argued that a claimant must