Download PDF - Goodmans

the R.C. 3955.19 stay provision as the claim did not arise out of any insurance
policy, but instead, out of a contract.
Ti‐Bert Systems, Inc. v. Union Indem. Ins. Co., No. 14207, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS
2160 (Ohio Ct. App. May 30, 1990). The Supreme Court of New York issued an
order of liquidation that stayed all proceedings against the insolvent insurance
company and its successor‐in‐interest. Affirming the lower court's judgment
enforcing that order, the Ohio appellate court found that actions taken by the
successor‐in‐interest subsequent to the filing of the order of liquidation did not
constitute a waiver of the protection of the stay. The liquidation order
imposed a stay of proceedings against the insurance company and its
successor‐in‐interest only; it did not impose a stay on actions brought by those
parties.
Oregon
Nasef v. U & I Investments, Inc., 755 P.2d 136, 91 Ore. App. 344 (1988). Plaintiffs
obtained a judgment in Oregon state court against an Indiana insurer which
was the subject of rehabilitation proceedings in Indiana. On appeal, the insurer
requested that the judgments against it be vacated, on the ground that the
Indiana rehabilitation court had stayed all proceedings involving the insolvent
insurer. The court agreed with the Indiana insurer, concluding that under the
Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act (which both Indiana and Oregon had
adopted), the rehabilitation court was authorized to stay all proceedings. As
the Indiana rehabilitation court did issue such a stay, the Oregon court was not
authorized to enter judgment against the insolvent insurer unless an ancillary
proceeding had been commenced.
Pennsylvania Bartilucci v. Safeguard Mutual Ins. Co., 212 Pa. Super. 414; 242 A.2d 916 (1968).
Judgment pursuant to arbitration proceeding in favor of insureds was set aside
where it was rendered after the insurer had been suspended by the insurance
commissioner.
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.
Plaintiffs constitute approximately 2,600 licensed agents who had received the
demand letter. 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.
Commonwealth ex rel. Woodside v. Seaboard Mutual Casualty Co., 30 D.& C.2d
705, 80 Dauph. 289 (1963), exceptions dismissed, 83 Dauph. 373 (1965). The
court held that after a decree of dissolution has been entered, a pending suit
against an insurance company could not be maintained. The plaintiffs were
required to present their claims to the commissioner of insurance as liquidator.
If a judgment is rendered against one insured by a company in liquidation and
the plaintiff was notified of the dissolution and of the last date of for
presenting claims to the liquidator, such a judgment does not bind the
liquidator. The liquidator may decrease the amount of the plaintiff's claim.