Download PDF - Goodmans

liquidator" once liquidation is ordered. Further, the Court held that the
intervenors attempted to shortcut the liquidation process, contrary to the
liquidation act, and therefore the Court affirmed the District Court's dismissal
of the petitions for return of the funds.
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
De Carlo v. Brye, 42 Misc.2d 667, 248 N.Y.S.2d 667 (1964). Where all of the
parties in the actions conceded that the fund, which was the subject matter of
the litigation, was one subject to supervision by the insurance commissioner
and that the fund should be liquidated, the commissioner's application for
permission to intervene would be granted and the commissioner would be
directed to prepare and enter an order of liquidation, and then all of the
actions would be dismissed.
State of North Carolina v. Interstate Casualty Insurance Co., et al., 417 S.E.2d
296 (N.C. App. 1992). An insurance company guaranteed warranty contracts of
a corporation. The State later advised the corporation and the insurance
company that their acts and practices related to the contracts constituted an
unfair and deceptive trade practice. Settlement agreements were entered into
between contract purchasers, the corporation and the insurance company.
Upon failure of the corporation to comply with the terms of the settlement
agreements, a class action was filed against it. Thereafter, the State instituted
a liquidation proceeding against the insurance company. The plaintiffs in the
class action filed a class proof of claim and a Motion to Intervene in the
liquidation proceeding. The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to
intervene as of right as their interests were protected by the filing of the proof
of claim and would be adequately represented by the liquidator.
Jump v. Manchester Ins. and Indem. Co., Nos. 91AP‐492, 91AP‐510, 1991 Ohio
App. LEXIS 5382 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 5, 1991). The court held that the trial court
abused its discretion in denying two insureds' motions to intervene into the
liquidation proceedings of an insolvent insurer. At a status hearing, held prior
to the filing of the motions to intervene and attended by all the relevant
parties, the trial court agreed to allow the two insureds to intervene and later
issued an order stating the same.
Okla. ex rel. Crawford v. Am. Standard Life & Accident Ins. Co., 37 P.3d 971 (Okla.
Civ. App. 2001). The court held general creditors of an insolvent insurance
company did not have standing to intervene in the liquidation proceeding
because general creditors do not have a direct interest in any particular asset of
the receivership estate. The court explained that OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 2024 (1991)
did not confer an unconditional right to intervene, and the Oklahoma Uniform
Insurers Liquidation Act (“OUILA”) was the controlling statute.
Chow v. Rosen, 571 Pa. 369, 812 A.2d 587 (Pa. 2002). Plaintiff sued several
doctors for medical malpractice. The appellant paid medical benefits on behalf
of the plaintiff for the treatment of his injuries, thereby giving it a subrogation
interest on any recoveries. The defendant’s primary insurer was placed in
liquidation and the Pennsylvania Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty
Association (“PPCIGA”) assumed the obligation of paying the covered claims of
the defendant. The plaintiff and defendant entered into a settlement
agreement that specifically contemplated an offset against settlement
proceeds of medical benefits paid by the appellant, a subrogee health insurance
provider. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to intervene to
assert its subrogation interest in the medical malpractice action. It reasoned
that ordinarily the appellant would have a right to intervene, but the non‐