Download PDF - Goodmans

medical malpractice action, which it settled. The Company filed a claim with the
Ohio Insurance Guaranty Association (“OIGA”), seeking reimbursement for the
settlement payment. Although the company’s claim was filed more than two
years after the bar date, the Indiana liquidating court accepted the company’s
claim as “timely filed.” OIGA, however, rejected the Company’s claim on the
ground that it was not timely filed. The trial court granted OIGA’s motion for
summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that
OIGA was obligated to observe the finality of the bar date, pursuant to Ohio
Revised Code § 3955.08(A)(1). The fact that the foreign jurisdiction allowed its
domestic receiver to accept the untimely claim did not control the liability of
OIGA.
Lorain County Bd. of Comm'rs v. United States Fire Ins. Co., C.A. NO.
91CA005090, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 225 (Jan. 22, 1992). A New York court in a
liquidation proceeding involving an insolvent insurer ordered that all claims
against the insurer be submitted within one year. Over two years after the
expiration of that one‐year period, an insured demanded coverage from the
Ohio Insurance Guaranty Association ("OIGA") based on the insolvency of its
insurers, one of which was the subject of the New York liquidation proceeding.
On appeal, the Ohio court of appeals not only reversed the trial court's order
granting summary judgment in favor of the insured, but also granted OIGA's
motion for summary judgment because the claim was filed with the OIGA after
the final date set by the New York court for filing claims in the liquidation
proceeding involving the insurer. The court declined to use equitable
principles in order to circumvent the statute providing that OIGA is not liable
for late claims.
Ohio Insurance Guarantee Association v. Berea Roll & Bowl, Inc., 19 Ohio
Misc.2d 3, 482 N.E.2d 995 (1984). The Ohio statute which permits the court to
set the final date for the filing claims in liquidation proceedings of an insolvent
insurer, superseded the two‐year statute of limitations for personal injury
actions, and thus, precluded claims against the insurance guaranty fund arising
out of personal injury actions against insureds which were not brought until
after the last day for filing claims, as the statute benefits claimants and
policyholders of insolvent companies in that without such a provision,
liquidation or distribution would not be effected until all potential statutes of
limitations have run.
Ratchford v. Proprietors Insurance Company, Ohio Ct. of Appeals, Docket No.
84 AP‐911 (Slip Op. 1985). After date is set by court as deadline for filing claims
against insolvent insurance company, the court will not modify the cut‐off date
to consider the claims as timely filed. The court held that pursuant to the Ohio
statute governing proofs of claims, the court has no discretion to consider
claims to have been timely filed because of equitable considerations.
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Homeland Ins. Co. v. Rankin, 1993 Okla. 19, 848 P.2d 587 (Ct. App. 1993). In
order to satisfy due process notice requirements in cases where identities of
interested persons are known or reasonably ascertainable, publication
notice is not sufficient. Therefore, a claim for compensation from the
Oklahoma Guaranty Fund was not barred even though the claimant did not
file it before the deadline specified by the Insurance Commissioner.
Commonwealth ex rel. Woodside v. Seaboard Mutual Casualty Co., 30 D.& C.2d
705, 80 Dauph. 289 (1963), exceptions dismissed, 83 Dauph. 373 (1965). After a
decree of dissolution has been entered, a pending suit against an insurance
company could not be maintained. The plaintiffs were required to present their
claims to the commissioner of insurance as liquidator.