Download PDF - Goodmans

of due process of law where interested persons, including claimant, received
timely specific instructions from the court and receiver concerning when,
where and how to file objections to disallowance of claim.
Tennessee Sizemore v. United Physicians Ins. Risk Retention Group, 958 S.W.2d 348, 1997
Tenn. App. LEXIS 372 (1997). Receiver of the liability carrier denied patient’s
claim due to patient filing late, although the patient was not informed of the
receiver’s deadline for claims. Court held that the patient’s right under
Tennessee Code § 56‐9‐311 to file a claim in the receivership proceedings
included the right to receive notice of the claim deadline. The liability insurer
was in liquidation under a statute that specifically provided for notice to and
claims of all persons reasonably expected to have claims against the insurer.
Also, the receiver obtained correspondence and records that reasonably
notified him of the patient’s claim. The patient obtained judgment in a separate
action against the insured doctor; hence the patient’s right in the insured
doctor’s liability coverage became an enforceable right.
Texas
Great American Investment Co. v. McFarling, 416 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. Civ. App.
1967), writ ref. n.r.e. The plaintiffs filed claim with receiver which was rejected
and the receivership proceedings was then closed. Plaintiffs sought to have
the order closing the receivership set aside on the ground that their claims had
not been properly rejected and the receivership should therefore not have
been closed. The court held that the provision requiring the receiver to notify
claimants of rejection allows the receiver's attorney to make such notice, and
requires any action upon a rejected claim to be brought within three months of
the rejection.
Claims Against the Estate ‐ In General
Phinney v. Langdeau, 337 S.W.2d 393 (Tex. Civ. App. 1960), writ ref. n.r.e. The
District Director of Internal Revenue filed claims against three insolvent
insurers, and the receiver rejected such claims. The District Director brought
action on the rejected claims, but court held that such action was barred by the
three month time limitation in the liquidation provisions in the insurance code.
On appeal, it was held that: 1) receiver's written notice of rejection was not
proper notice of rejection because it was not addressed to the district director,
who had signed the proof of claim; 2) the court order authorizing the rejection
of the claims did not constitute written notice of rejection; and 3) because of
improper notice of rejection, the three month time limitation never began to
run.
Eighth Circuit
Arizona
Beale v. Connecticut Fire Ins. of Hartford, Conn., 120 F. 790 (8th Cir. 1903). The
court rejected a claim by an assignee of an insolvent insurer against another
solvent insurer because the assignee could not take title which would support
a suit to recover assets claimed to have been wrongfully diverted by the
insolvent insurer's directors and officers from the solvent insurer, which had
assumed the business of the insolvent insurer, since such insurer had nothing
to assign due to its supervision by the Missouri insurance commissioner due to
insolvency.
Academy Life Ins. Co. v. Odiorne, 797 P.2d 727, 165 Ariz. 188 (1990). The
Arizona Court of Appeals held that: (1) a receivership claimant had standing to
challenge another claimant's claim by raising defenses personal to the debtor,
if the receiver had not raised them; (2) the four‐month proof of claim filing
period did not constitute a statute of limitations, and does not revive a claim
that is otherwise time barred; and (3) a claim arising in another state that is
valid in that state may be asserted in an Arizona receivership even if the
Arizona statute of limitations would bar that claim.