Download PDF - Goodmans

purpose of opposing the final accounting of a former receiver and for
directions to successor receiver thereon, where it did not appear that any
useful purpose would be served by permitting the intervention and it appeared
the petition to intervene was but one of many dilatory steps being taken to
delay the proceeding. It was error in failing to give members formal notice of
particular proceedings in receivership, since where members had opportunity
to contest and did contest the various stages of the proceeding, no prejudice
could be shown.
Nebraska
New Jersey
State ex rel. Wagner v. Amwest Surety Ins. Co., 738 N.W.2d 813 (Neb. 2007). A
claimant of an insolvent insurance company challenged the liquidator’s
compliance with the notice provisions of Nebraska Insurers Supervision,
Rehabilitation, and Liquidation Act. The Supreme Court of Nebraska held that
when notice is not properly given in accordance with the Act, a claimant should
not be penalized for failing to timely file a claim in the liquidation proceeding of
which the claimant was unaware. Further, if the liquidator’s file reflected the
potential claimant’s direct address, then mailing a notice to the attorneys listed
in correspondence between the claimant and the insurance company from
several years previous does not satisfy the Act. The Act indicates that notice
must be mailed to the last known address of all persons known or reasonably
expected to have claims. In this case, the insurance company records contained
the last know address of the claimant. However, whether notice was actually
sent to this address by the liquidator was a point of dispute between the
parties. The burden of proof fell to the liquidator to prove the notice
requirements had been met, which the liquidator failed to do.
In the Matter of the Liquidation of Integrity Insurance Company, 231 N.J. Super.
143 (Ch. Div. 1988). Integrity's creditors sought a policyholders' committee to
enable the policyholders to protect their interests in the liquidation of the
company. The policyholders claimed that they had not been informed as to
the progress of the litigation nor had they been given the opportunity to
participate in negotiations and were unaware of the status of commutations.
The court held that it is empowered and authorized to create a policyholders'
committee pursuant to its equitable powers as a Chancery Court and the
Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act. The court, however, concluded that
policyholders had no right to notice of all the proceedings regarding the
liquidation of Integrity under the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act. Moreover,
the court concluded that the creation of a policyholders' committee would
inevitably result in the inefficient administration of the Integrity estate,
increased litigation, depletion of the assets of Integrity's estate and would
have an adverse impact upon the interests of all other creditors. Thus, the
court denied the motion to appoint a policyholders' committee.
New Mexico Aztec Well Servicing Co. v. Property & Cas. Ins. Guar. Assoc. of the State, 115
N.M. 475, 853 P.2d 726 (1993). Insured, which paid claim of claimant under
excess liability policy issued by insurer which became insolvent, amply
notified insurer’s conservator in its proof of claim form of claimant’s
personal injury claim precipitating coverage under the policy. Therefore, the
statutory notice requirement for claim against property and casualty
insurance guaranty association respecting insolvent insurer was met, despite
fact that the proof of claim form did not specifically denote claimant. The
form substantially complied with statute.
New York
In re National Surety Co., 7 F. Supp. 959 (D.C.N.Y. 1934). An insurance company
is no longer in possession of or has title to its property upon the filing and