Download PDF - Goodmans

purported rescission by the company prior to the appointment of a receiver
would provide a valid defense to the assessment.
Clark v. Manufacturer's Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 130 Ind. 332, 30 N.E. 212 (1892).
The court held that the amounts received from the assessable policies would
be used for the payment of loss claims under both the all cash and mutual
policies. Assessments cannot be used to pay unearned premium claims, but
rather can only be paid out of the cash or other assets of the company. Thus
the assessment fund should be first exhausted in the payment of fire losses
and only then upon exhaustion should the cash fund on hand be drawn upon
to pay fire losses. Otherwise the cash fund would be used to pay unearned
premium claims.
Clark v. Schromyer, 23 Ind. App. 565, 55 N.E. 785 (1899). The receiver of an
Illinois benevolent association tried to collect assessments from an Indiana
policyholder, who had failed to pay, but was rejected because the policy of the
association merely provided that upon failure to pay the assessment, the only
penalty attached was an end to membership in the benevolent association
because the contracts were unilateral and not bilateral.
Embree v. Schidler, 36 Ind. 423 (1871). A receiver of an insolvent mutual
insurance company cannot collect on an assessment of members unless the
court has examined and determined the validity of the claim, that the amount
of such claims is appropriate, and that the assessment of the members is only
for those losses that occurred during the time the policyholder was a member
of the company. Cases following a similar holding are: Heller v. McCormick, 38
Ind. 30 (1871); Manlove v. Curtis, 38 Ind. 31 (1871); Tippecanoe Twp., Carroll
County v. Manlove, 39 Ind. 249 (1872); Manlove v. Naylor, 38 Ind. 424 (1871);
Manlove v. Naw, 39 Ind. 289 (1872); Manlove v. Bender, 39 Ind. 371 (1872);
Whitman v. Mason, 40 Ind. 189 (1872); Hasagan v. Manlove, 42 Ind. 330 (1873);
and Downs v. Hammond, 47 Ind. 131 (1874).
Manlove v. Berger, 38 Ind. 211 (1871). In an action by receiver of an insolvent
mutual insurance company to recover assessments, it was held that the
receiver is authorized to sue in the receiver's own name, but must allege all the
facts necessary to show liability on the premium notes. Further, while the
appointment of a receiver is binding on the premium note holders, that
appointment alone does not establish their liability on such notes.
Mueller v. State Life Ins. Co., 27 Ind. App. 45, 60 N.E. 958 (1901). In an action by
the receiver of an insolvent mutual life insurance company for collection of
assessments, the court rejected the policyholder's argument that the
policyholder had an "illegal" special contract for appointment as counsel since
the contract had nothing to do with the policy. The second defense was also
properly rejected on the theory that the policyholder had no right to consent
to the reorganization of the company, since the reorganization had no effect
on the policyholders rights and duties under the policy of insurance
Whitman v. Hall, 34 Ind. 422 (1870). Although no facts were provided to the
court as to action by the receiver of an insolvent mutual insurance company to
collect assessments, the complaint standing alone is sufficient to state a cause
of action, and the policyholder's motion to dismiss was not properly granted.
Whitman v. Meissner, 34 Ind. 487 (1870). The receiver of an insolvent mutual
insurance company attempted to collect on assessments against various
policyholders who raised a number of defenses, including misrepresentation
by the agent that the company was solvent, that it could not assess more than
10% per year, and that no assessments could be made in the first year. In
addition, it was noted the policyholders were German immigrants. Based on