Download PDF - Goodmans

Uninsured Employer’s Fund v. Mounts, 255 Va. 254, 497 S.E.2d 464 (1998).
The Supreme Court of Virginia held that the phrase “keeping insured” in Va.
Code § 65.2‐801(A)(1) (1950) means that an employer subject to the
Workers’ Compensation Act “must be and remain insured.” Therefore, an
employer whose employees are susceptible to pneumoconiosis must
anticipate that such claims will accrue in the future and must secure its
liability for such potential claims, even when its insurer has been declared
insolvent. When there has been a failure to do so, the Uninsured Employer’s
Fund will be liable because the employer has violated its statutory duty.
Atkinson Dredging Company v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company,
836 F. Supp. 341 (1993). Atkinson Dredging brought a declaratory judgment
action to determine the liability of excess carriers when the primary carrier
has become insolvent. Atkinson claimed the policy required the excess
carrier to “drop down” and cover the losses not paid by the primary insurers
or, alternatively, that the excess policy was ambiguous and should be
interpreted in the light most favorable to the insured. The court granted
summary judgment in favor of the insurers holding that the excess policy
was unambiguous in precluding “drop down” coverage when the primary
carrier becomes insolvent.
Liability of the Insurance Commissioner
Sixth Circuit
Ass’n of Banks in Ins., Inc. v. Duryee, 270 F.3d 397 (6th Cir. 2001). The plaintiffs, a
national bank and several organizations whose memberships include national
banks, filed suit against the Ohio Superintendent of Insurance seeking: (1) a
declaratory judgment that certain Ohio licensing provisions as applied to
national banks are preempted by § 13 of the Federal Reserve Act; and (2) a
permanent injunction preventing the Superintendent of Insurance from
enforcing these provisions against national banks to the extent they are
preempted. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs,
granting a declaratory judgment and permanently enjoining the superintendent
from enforcing the challenged Ohio provisions and the Court of Appeals
affirmed.
Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Fabe, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 8475 (6th Cir. 1992). The
Superintendent rejected the insurer’s request for increases in three policies.
Rather than request the statutorily provided hearing, the insurer brought a §
1983 action against the superintendent to obtain declaratory relief. The insurer
claimed the superintendent systematically disapproved rate revisions without
first making the required finding that the rates were not properly calculated. If
the superintendent issued a finding that an applicant’s request was actuarially
inadequate, without conducting an actual actuarial review, the superintendent
failed to perform his duties. However, the statute created a remedy for such
acts by allowing a hearing process. That the insurer would have had to bear the
costs of the hearing and that the policies only affected a few insureds and were
not cost‐beneficial to appeal did not mean that the insurer was deprived of any
rights. The insurer did not have a property interest in the requested rate
increase until the premium increase was approved. The case against the
superintendent was dismissed.
Alabama
E.F. Hutton v. Forrester, Circuit Court of Mobile County, Ala. (Sept. 28, 1984). A
third party complaint was filed against the Alabama insurance commissioner in