01.01.2014 Views

Download PDF - Goodmans

Download PDF - Goodmans

Download PDF - Goodmans

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Insurance Guaranty Association (“MIGA”) pay the $300,000 statutory maximum<br />

toward the claim for a judgment in excess of the primary insurer/assignor’s own<br />

policy limits. The court held that the assignor’s claim to MIGA was not a<br />

“covered claim” within the meaning of the Insurance Guaranty Act, but rather,<br />

the assignment was a disguised subrogation attempt by the primary<br />

insurer/assignor. The court reasoned that, to be entitled to subrogation, the<br />

assignor would have to show that it paid something that it was not legally<br />

obligated to pay. In this context, the assignor was the primary insurer and, in<br />

failing to settle the claim within policy limits, was obligated to pay in full the sum<br />

of the judgment obtained against it.<br />

Distribution of the Assets<br />

Priorities in Allowance of Claims ‐ In General<br />

Fourth Circuit<br />

North Carolina v. United States, 139 F.3d 892, 1998 WL 178374 (4 th Cir. (N.C.)).<br />

Northwestern Security Life Insurance Company, which specialized in life,<br />

health, and accident insurance, failed after rehabilitation efforts proved<br />

unsuccessful. On May 8, 1990, Northwestern was placed into liquidation<br />

under the control of the North Carolina Insurance Commissioner. The<br />

federal priority statute required the Commissioner to pay the federal tax<br />

claims of the United States first. After the Supreme Court held, in U.S. Dept.<br />

of Treasury v. Fabe, 508 U.S. 491 (1993), that under the McCarran‐Ferguson<br />

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1012, state insurance insolvency statutes are not preempted<br />

by the federal priority statute to the extent that the state statutes afford a<br />

higher priority to policyholder claims and claims for administrative expenses<br />

than to claims of the United States, the commissioner filed an amended tax<br />

return for 1990 and 1991. The Internal Revenue Service claimed that federal<br />

income taxes accrued during liquidation were entitled to first priority status<br />

as administrative expenses under North Carolina General Statute § 58‐30‐<br />

220(l).<br />

The question presented was whether federal taxes are costs of<br />

administration under the priority structure of the North Carolina Insurance<br />

Insolvency Statute. The court held that taxes accrued before liquidation<br />

cannot be considered administrative expenses because they accrued long<br />

before an estate was being administered. The taxes accrued after liquidation<br />

are administrative expenses. For tax purposes, the earned income from<br />

insurance premiums is spread over the life of the policy, thus, income taxed<br />

subsequent to the year the premium is actually paid is still real income. The<br />

income taxes accrued in 1990 and 1991, for premiums already paid to<br />

Northwestern, constituted administrative expenses because there was a<br />

liquidation order at the time of the accrual. Therefore, the court granted<br />

summary judgment for the United States, holding that under the North<br />

Carolina Statute when taxes accrued after the court entered a liquidation<br />

order, those taxes should be considered administrative expenses entitled to<br />

first priority.<br />

Seventh Circuit<br />

Cullom v. Traders Ins. Co. 163 F. 45 (7th Cir. 1908). Plaintiff and other general<br />

agents of insolvent insurance company (resulting from the San Francisco<br />

earthquake of 1906), challenged the appointment of a receiver with a view to<br />

secure a right to the insolvent company's unearned premium reserve on the<br />

theory that the agents, in paying unearned premium claims on behalf of the<br />

company, were entitled to a priority claim to this "trust fund". The court held<br />

constitutional the statute under which dissolutions was authorized and the<br />

general agents' petition for intervention was rejected.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!