Download PDF - Goodmans

Maclem v. Bacon, 57 Mich. 334, 24 N.W. 91 (1885). Where all of the parties
insured in the mutual company, including those who had suffered loss by fire,
when they took the insurance understood and agreed that they were liable
only to the amount of their premium notes, when, under the statute, they
became liable in the event of the company becoming insolvent and the
receiver being appointed, to pay all assessments levied by the receiver for the
purpose of paying the losses and liabilities of the company, and the services
and expenses of the receiver, in proportion to the amount of their insurance or
interest in the company, they will be entitled to relief on the ground of a
mistake of law when the company becomes insolvent and the receiver
appointed attempts to enforce their statutory liability.
Nichol v. Murphy, 145 Mich. 424, 108 N.W. 704 (1906). The court held that it is
clearly within the authority of the court having jurisdiction to accept the
resignation of the initial receiver and to appoint a successor receiver after the
notice required by law has been given. Even if proper notice is not served, the
appointment may not be collaterally attacked. Furthermore, the court may set
aside the initial assessment made by the first receiver based upon irregularities
in the assessment which was grossly excessive in amount, and may confirm a
new assessment which is lesser in amount.
Nichol v. Newman, 160 Mich. 582, 125 N.W. 760 (1910). In an action by the
receiver of an insolvent mutual fire insurance company to recover an
assessment, the court held that the statute of limitations begins to run against
the receiver's right of action from the date of the assessment, and not from
the date of the appointment of the receiver.
Peake v. Yule, 123 Mich. 675, 82 N.W. 514 (1900). Where a policyholder in a
mutual fire insurance company cancels a policy, and thereafter pays several
assessments for the payment of losses and expenses incurred during the time
the policy was in force, such holder is not relieved from the payment of other
assessments necessary to cover such expenses and losses.
Russel v. Berry, 51 Mich. 287, 16 N.W. 651 (1883). The defendant claimed that
under his contract with the insurance company, he was not liable for
assessments beyond a given sum. The court, denying the defendant's claim,
held that the receiver was entitled to assess all insured members of the
company such amounts as will be sufficient to pay all the losses and liabilities
of the insolvent company, including the services and expenses of the receiver,
in proportion to the amount of their insurance.
Simpson v. Goodwich, 280 Mich. 351, 273 N.W. 595 (1937). The lower court
properly dismissed the action by the receiver to recover an assessment not
paid by the defendant. The assessment was unenforceable as it was not made
in accordance with the court order which clearly instructed the method of
ascertaining and enforcing the liability of policyholders. See also, Eli v. Oakland
Circuit Judge,,162 Mich. 466, 125 N.W. 375 (1910), modified in other respects,
162 Mich. 466, 127 N.W. 769.
Tolford v. Church, 66 Mich. 431, 33 N.W. 913 (1887). The court held that a
policyholder in a mutual fire insurance company is not liable for an assessment
claimed by the receiver subsequent to the surrender and cancellation of his
policy.
Toy v. Lapeer Farmers Mutual Fire Ins. Ass'n., 297 Mich. 174, 297 N.W. 232
(1941). Members of a mutual fire insurance association who continue as
members after the expiration of the association's certificate of authority were
held liable for assessments covering the period from such expiration until the