Download PDF - Goodmans

commissioner and approved by the court. When the commissioner
recommended disallowing the claim and the court entered an order
disallowing it on the grounds of insufficient evidence, it became incumbent on
the appellant to present evidence proving the claim. The claim was attacked
by the commissioner and the court held that a verified statement of claim,
standing alone, was not sufficient proof of the validity of the claim.
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Pennsylvania Ins. Guar. Ass'n. v. Charter Abstract corp., 790 F. Supp. 82 (E.D.
Pa. 1992). Insurance company brought action seeking declaration that it was
not obligated to defend or indemnify insurance agency and its employee under
professional liability insurance policy with respect to claim of foreign title
insurer. When insurance company was liquidated, Pennsylvania Insurance
Guaranty Association was substituted as plaintiff and title insurer intervened as
defendant. The district court held that the foreign title insurer was not a
resident of Pennsylvania under the Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty
Association Act and, therefore, could not assert a "covered" claim. In a
footnote, the court explained that even if the foreign title insurer had been
deemed a resident of Pennsylvania, it nonetheless could not maintain a
covered claim because it was an "insurer."
McReynolds v. Petroleum Marketers Mut'l Ins. Co., 1994 Tenn. App. LEXIS
595 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). Court affirmed receiver’s decision to disallow a
late filed claim. Policyholder asserted excusable neglect due to a belief that
no further action was required after the original claim was filed. However,
policyholder did not submit any substantial explanation for failure to comply
with the filing deadline.
McReynolds v. United Physicians Ins. Risk Retention Group (In re Valdez), 914
S.W.2d 491, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 162 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). Insurer was placed
into receivership after the insured notified his insurer of malpractice claims
against him. The receiver mailed notices of the liquidation order to the insured,
informing him that he was required to fill out and return a proof of claim form.
After the insured failed to do so, coverage of the malpractice claims were
denied and the insured failed to object within the statutory time period. The
chancery court allowed the insured to file the proof of claim, but the court
reversed. The court rejected the insured’s argument that he, in good faith,
believed that his original filing was all that was legally required from him. The
prior filing of a claim with an insurer did not by itself justify a waiver of the proof
of claim requirement found in Tennessee Code § 56‐9‐311. The court found that
there were no special facts or circumstances surrounding the insured’s failure to
submit a proof of claim form or in his failure to timely object to the receiver’s
denial of his claims, sufficient to justify the chancery court’s decision to allow
him to file a proof of claim.
Texas
Khalaf v. Odiorne, 767 S.W.2d 856 (Tex. App. ‐‐ Austin 1989, writ denied).
Plaintiff filed proof of claim in receivership proceeding, but inadvertently
stated an incorrect return address. The rejection letter was returned to
receiver undelivered, marked "no such number." More than three months
after the rejection was mailed, plaintiff filed suit. The court affirmed a takenothing
judgment in favor of the receiver, finding that the insurance code
section governing the receiver's notification of potential claimants should be
read in pari materia with the section governing notice of rejection of claims,
and that proof of mailing of the letter was sufficient to constitute notice,
actual receipt of notice was not required. Accordingly, the receiver's rejection
of the claim had become final by claimant's failure to file suit within three
months, as provided in the insurance code.
Langdeau v. Pittman, 337 S.W. 2d 343 (Tex. Civ. App. 1960), writ ref. n.r.e.
Upon receiver's denial of their claim for damages for injuries caused by the