Download PDF - Goodmans

ond, the court found the claim was "excused late filed" claim under the
applicable Wisconsin statute for distribution from the estate.
Court Approval or Rejection of Claims ‐ Adequate Proof
California Carpenter v. Coast Surety Corporation, 25 Cal. App. 2d 209, 77 P.2d 294 (1938).
The court concluded that the county was entitled to allowance of claim on a
bail bond of an insurance company where the bond was forfeited and
judgment thereon was entered during the period allowed for filing of claims.
Garamendi v. Golden Eagle Ins. 128 Cal. App. 4th 452 (Ct. App. 2005). The trial
court may use evidence that was not before the commissioner in determining
extrinsic issues such as the fairness and thoroughness of the commissioner’s
procedures. It may not use evidence not used by the commissioner to review
the commissioners ruling on the merits of a claim.
District of
Columbia Hemisphere National Bank v. District of Columbia Ins. Guar. Corp., 412 A.2d 31
(D.C. 1980). The D.C. Court of Appeals held that under the District of Columbia
insurance guaranty fund law, which provides a mechanism for the payment of
covered claims under certain insurance policies, a claimant did not have to first
establish the validity of a claim in a liquidation proceeding, but merely had to
establish the validity of the claim before the guaranty fund itself.
Georgia
Collins v. Dacus, 211 Ga. 779, 89 S.E.2d 198 (1955). The court held that obtaining
a judgment against the insolvent insurer was not a prerequisite to proving the
validity of plaintiff's claim in the liquidation proceeding, since judgment against
insured was valid, and since the policy provided that liability of the insurer
accrued on the date of the injury. The plaintiff had obtained a judgment
against an insured of an insolvent insurer after the initiation of receivership for
injuries that occurred before the institution of the receivership.
Illinois People ex rel. Palmer v. Fort Dearborn Ins. Co., 307 Ill. App. 194, 30 N.E.2d 139
(1940). Claimants appealed from the disallowance of their claims, which were
initiated prior to an order of liquidation, but had not been reduced to
judgments prior to that time on the basis there was no direct claim in favor of
the claimants until after judgment against the insured. The court held that
since sufficient evidence was presented in the claimants' proof of claim filed
with the receiver, and no objection was made to the quantum of proof or that
the judgments were not valid, equitable considerations dictated that such
claims should have been allowed.
Indiana
Holz v. H.C. Baldwin Agency, 140 F. Supp. 860 (S.D. Ind. 1956). A New York
insurance liquidator brought suit to recover premiums collected, and the
defendant agent counterclaimed for sums due from the insurer, but the period
for filing claims had elapsed. The court concluded that it was not precluded
from liquidating those claims because the insurance code now authorized the
filing of proofs of claims against insurers in liquidation subsequent to the date
specified in the notice to creditors.
Michigan Ploy v. Lapeer Farmers Mutual Fire Ins. Ass'n, 295 Mich. 218, 294 N.W. 160
(1940). In an appeal from a denial of a claim, the court held that evidence at
trial of a claim for a fire loss warranted allowance of the mortgagors' claim on
ground they were the insured and the policy, as reduced in amount, was in
force at time of loss.
Mississippi
Home Ins. Co. v. Miss. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 904 So. 2d 95 (Miss. 2004). The primary
carrier of insured, an insolvent insurer, failed to settle a personal injury claim