Download PDF - Goodmans

directors were not included in that made by the court and thus show that
limitations were not set in motion by the assessments levied by the directors.
California Mitchell v. Pacific Greyhound Lines Inc., 33 Cal. App. 2d 53, 91 P.2d 176 (1939).
Subscribers of the California Highway Indemnity Exchange collaterally attacked
an order appointing a liquidator and the provisions of the order regarding the
manner of computing the liability of the subscribers. The court concluded that
the subscribers were subject to a limited assessment liability upon liquidation
of the exchange.
Colorado
Benham v. Manufacturers & Wholesalers Indem., 685 P.2d 249 (Colo. App.
1984). Subscribers to an insurance exchange cannot challenge the
reasonableness of assessments levied against them by a Receivership Court
where subscriber's status as a creditor is adequately represented by the
receiver.
Benham v. Pryke, 744 P.2d 67 (Colo. 1987). Contracts between participants in
an insurance exchange and underwriters or reinsurers obligated to provide
coverage to participants against assessments by a receivership court are
interpreted in accordance with general contract principals.
Florida
Southeastern Staffing, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Ins., 728 So. 2d 248 (Fla. Dist.
Ct. App. 1998) (certified question to Florida Supreme Court pending). The
Florida Department of Insurance as receiver of an insolvent workers'
compensation fund could assess fund members for workers' compensation
claims, awards and administrative expenses of the receivership. Such
assessment was authorized by statute and was not an impermissible taking
of private property.
Georgia Pink v. Georgia Stages, Inc., 35 F. Supp. 437 (M.D. Ga. 1940); Swing v. Farrar, 124
Ga. 951, 53 S.E. 269 (1906); Lockridge v. State Mutual Life Ins. Co. 142 Ga. 30, 82
S.E. 131 (1914); Alma Gin & Milling Co. v. Peeples, 145 Ga. 722, 89 S.E. 820 (1916);
Riggs v. Scarboro, 57 Ga. App. 457, 195 S.E. 918 (1938); Lyle v. Keehn, 195 Ga.
508, 24 S.E.2d 655 (1043); Gaston v. Keehn, 195 Ga. 559, 24 S.E.2d 675 (1943)
transferred, 69 Ga. App. 500, 26 S.E.2d 107 (1943). These cases all involve the
insolvency of a mutual or cooperative insurer, and the issues of when members
may be assessed, which court has jurisdiction to determine the assessment,
whether the action is one at law or in equity, whether independent actions
must be brought, which state's law determines whether a party is a member of
the company, and whether members may set off dividends or claims due from
or against the company against an assessment.
Illinois Clark v. Lehman, 65 Ill. App. 238 (1895). A receiver of an incorporated
association succeeds to all the rights of action which had accrued to the
insolvent association, including the authority to collect assessments from
members for death losses. The determination of what a defaulting member is
liable to pay depends upon the contract between the member and the
association.
In re Protection Life Ins. Co., Fed. Cas. Case No. 11,444, 9 Biss 188 (Cir. Ct. Ill.
1879). Under the terms of the assessable life insurance policy issued to the
members of an insolvent insurance company, assessments were to be paid at
the election of the policyholder. Thus, the effort by the receiver to collect such
assessments cannot be enforced and the failure of the insolvent company to
make assessments on a monthly basis as provided in the policy cannot be
retrieved by the receiver of the insolvent company.
Lehman v. Clark, 174 Ill. 279, 51 N.E. 229 (1898). The receiver of an insolvent
benefit association was not allowed to recover certain assessments against the