Download PDF - Goodmans

when contingent claims must necessarily be excluded and the two‐year period
fixed by the provision of the general act for the incorporation of companies for
pecuniary profit is applicable to the dissolution of insurance companies.
Evans v. Illinois Surety Co., 220 Ill. App. 216 (Ill. App. Ct. 1920). The court held
that a claim was improperly disallowed because of the mistaken theory that
the appointment of a receiver had the effect of cancelling the contracts of an
insolvent company because the claims under the contract were not absolute
or liquidated.
In re Ancillary Receivership of Ideal Mutual Ins. Co., 218 Ill. App. 3d 1039, 578
N.E.2d 1235 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991). Midwest Steel Erection Company's insurer
was declared insolvent in New York, and the New York court set February 7,
1986 as a cut‐off date for filing proofs of claim. Midwest filed a proof of
claim by the cut‐off date, but was served with three complaints after the cutoff
date, but while its policy with the insolvent insurer was active. Midwest
asked the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund ("IIGF") for fund protection for
the later claims, but the fund refused, stating that the claims were not timely
filed. Midwest amended its proof of claim with the New York Insurance
Department, and again asked the fund for protection on the later claims, but
the fund refused. The court agreed with the IIGF's actions, and stated that
the three later claims were not covered under the Illinois Insurance Guaranty
Fund Act ("the Act"), as they were contingent claims not filed before the
cut‐off date. While an insured may file contingent claims, they must be
timely filed to be covered claims. The court said that the amendment to the
proof of claim form filed in New York was not an amendment at all, but
instead added new and distinct claims. The court ruled that the New York
liquidator's acceptance of Midwest's claim as a covered claim was not
binding on the IIGF. The court interpreted Section 221.4 of the Insurance
Code to mean that if a Illinois claimant chooses to prove his or her claim
against an insurer domiciled in another state in an Illinois court, the decisions
of the Illinois courts would be binding on the other state's liquidator.
In Re Ideal Mutual Ins. Co., 218 Ill. App. 3d 1039, 578 N.E.2d 1235 (1st Dist. 1991).
Contingent, unliquidated claims against an insolvent insurer, are not covered
claims under the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund Act, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 73, par.
1065.90‐5(a), where notice of the specific claims are not given prior to the filing
deadline. A contingent claim will not make timely specific claims filed after the
statutory deadline, even though those claims arose while the policy was in
effect.
Union Gesellschaft Fur Metal Industrie Co. v. Illinois Ins. Guaranty Fund, 190 Ill.
App. 3d 696, 546 N.E.2d 1076 (5th Dist. 1989). The filing of a contingent claim
which does not identify a specific claim is not sufficient under the Illinois
Insurance Guaranty Fund Act to make timely specific claims made after the
statutory filing deadline. "Covered claims" under the Act include only those
specific claims made before the statutory filing deadline, and a contingent
claim will not make timely specific claims filed after such time.
Union Gesellschaft Fur Metal Industrie Co. v. Illinois Ins. Guaranty Fund, 190 Ill.
App. 3d 696, 546 N.E.2d 1076 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989). The plaintiff had filed a
contingent claim before the final date for the filing of proofs of claim and then
submitted two specific claims after the final date. The plaintiff argued that the
contingent claim gave the appropriate notice to the defendant and therefore
the specific claims should be considered covered claims for the Fund. The court
held that in order to be considered a covered claim under the Illinois Insurance
Guaranty Fund's authorizing statute, notice of specific claims must be given to
the Liquidator prior to the final date set for the timely filing of proofs. The court
concluded that the legislative intent of the timely filing requirement would have