Download PDF - Goodmans

The circuit judge's denial of plaintiff's petition was affirmed since plaintiff was
one of only 13 dissenters of the reinsurance agreement, acquiesced in by over
30,000 policyholders, whereby the reinsurance agreement dealt with the
property and assets of the insolvent company under the order of a federal
court and with the approval of the commissioner of insurance without
widespread confusion or hardship to the many thousands of individuals
involved.
Missouri
Ainsworth v. Old Security Life Ins. Co., 694 S.W.2d 838 (Mo. App. 1985). A sole
stockholder which was entitled to receive all of the assets, upon final
distribution, of an insolvent carrier sought leave to intervene in a proceeding
involving payment of fees for the receiver's attorney. The Missouri Court of
Appeals granted the motion on the grounds that the petitioner had an
immediate and direct economic interest in the matter, whereas the receiver
was only a stakeholder. The Court found that: "[T]he receiver has a variety of
interests to serve, and really has no economic interest in the outcome of the
case. He may do his duty in defending against [the claim], and yet come short
of the kind of single‐purposed defense that may be expected from [the sole
stockholder]." 694 S.W.2d at 841.
In re Liquidation of Prof’l Med. Co. and Prof’l Mut. Ins. Co. Risk Retention
Group, 92 S.W.2d 775 (Mo. 2003) (en banc). A medical malpractice insurer and
stock property casualty insurer were declared insolvent and receivership
proceedings were initiated. Various doctors moved to intervene in the
proceeding to pursue a shareholder derivative action and requested the
appointment of trustees, which was denied. The Supreme Court reversed the
district court’s decision by holding that the doctors were entitled to intervene
as a matter of right to pursue derivative action by and on behalf of the various
medical malpractice insurers whose doctors, as members, had an interest in
property that was the subject of the proceeding. The court further reasoned
that the doctors’ ability to protect their interests was impeded as they had no
legal right to assert their claim other than by means of intervention and
receiver was inadequately representing the doctors’ interests. Lastly, the
Supreme Court directed the district court to fashion an appropriate procedure
for any potential conflicts of interest that might arise with respect to the
receiver’s role to ensure that he adequately protects each party’s interest.
In re Transit Casualty Co., 43 S.W.3d 293 (Mo. 2001) (en banc). In a rehabilitation
case brought by the Director of Insurance against an insolvent insurance
company, the Pulitzer Publishing Company intervened for the sole purpose of
unsealing court records relating to the salary and bonuses of the special deputy
receiver. The trial court denied Pulitzer’s request, and Pulitzer appealed. The
Supreme Court of Missouri reversed and remanded, holding that the
receivership court’s order was an appealable “final judgment,” and that “case
records are presumptively open to public inspection and copying absent a
compelling justification for their closure.”
Montana Bennet v. Glacier General Assurance Company, 748 P.2d 464 (Mont. 1987).
Borrowers who deposited funds with an assurance company in exchange for
financial guarantees, moved to intervene in the liquidation proceedings of the
assurance company, to assert their claims for return of the funds. The
Montana Supreme Court held that the liquidation act barred the borrowers
from intervening. The Court held that the intervenors' petitions in District
Court constituted actions against the insurer or Liquidator within the meaning
of Montana statutory law. The Court relied on the statutory language which
provided that "no action at law or equity may be brought against the insurer or