Download PDF - Goodmans

participate in the transaction "on behalf of" the Cadillac, corporation. While
not explicitly alleging that defendant acted "on behalf of" his corporation,
the pleadings were sufficiently detailed to allow for such an inference.
Therefore, the court denied defendant's motion to dismiss for failing to
state a cause of action.
Iowa
Franzen v. Hutchinson, 94 Iowa 95, 62 N.W. 698 (1895). The Iowa agents of a
Minnesota insolvent insurer, upon learning that the company had been placed
in receivership, cancelled certain policies of the company and took
assignments of unearned premium claims which they sought to set off against
their debts to the Minnesota company. The Iowa court held that the
company's voluntary assignment under Minnesota law was invalid under Iowa
law and therefore would not be given extraterritorial effect to the assignment
in enforcing judgments against the Iowa agents.
Hager v. Doubletree, No. 88‐581 (S. Ct. Iowa, May 17, 1989) (WESTLAW, IA‐CS,
52259). The insurance commissioner, as liquidator of an insolvent carrier, sued
several nonresident defendants to recover unpaid premiums. The defendants
argued that the statute conferring personal jurisdiction on the court was
unconstitutional. In upholding the statute and reciting the minimum contacts
that the defendants had with the State of Iowa, the Supreme Court of Iowa
reasoned: "This situation is a little like a marriage: while it was [the in‐state
company] who proposed, the [out of state company] accepted, and the
resulting relationship makes it relatively insignificant which party started it all."
Louisiana
All Star Adver. Agency, Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 898 So. 2d 369 (La. 2005). The
state supreme court addressed the issue of whether the Louisiana insurance
receivership statutes, based on the Uniform Insurance Liquidation Act, was
equivalent in substance and effect as the Pennsylvania insurance receivership
statutes for the purpose of determining whether an order from a Pennsylvania
insurance receivership court was entitled to full faith and credit in Louisiana.
The court held that Pennsylvania and Louisiana have reciprocal statutes, and
therefore, the order from the Pennsylvania receivership court was entitled to
full faith and credit in Louisiana. The court explained that a determination of
reciprocity required an independent examination of the two states’ receivership
statutes and not reliance on a cursory review of a non‐statutory table of
comparisons in an annotated statute volume.
Bonura v. United Bankers Life Insurance Co., 509 So. 2d 8 (La. Ct. App. 1987).
Louisiana court had subject matter jurisdiction in a coverage dispute between
Louisiana resident and an insolvent Texas domiciled insurer. The court held
that because Louisiana has adopted the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act and
Texas had not and was thus not a reciprocal state, the provisions of the
Uniform Insurers Liquidation Law are not applicable with respect to claims
against foreign insurers from Texas. However, the court held that under
Louisiana's Insurance Code, no insurance contract delivered or issued for
delivery in Louisiana which covers Louisiana residents may contain any
provision which deprives the courts of Louisiana of jurisdiction over actions
against the insurer. Thus, no foreign insurer may enjoy the benefits of a source
of business in Louisiana without being prepared to answer any claims based on
that business by a Louisiana resident in the Louisiana courts.
Bonura v. United Bankers Life Insurance Company, 552 So.2d 1248 (La. App. 1st
Cir. 1989), writ denied, 558 So.2d 1125 (La. 1990). On appeal, the court affirmed
its earlier holding [Bonura v. United Bankers Life Insurance Company, 509
So.2d 8 (La. App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 512 So.2d 462 (La. 1987)] that the
Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act did not preclude Louisiana courts from
exercising jurisdiction over claims against an insolvent Texas domiciled
insurance company, because Texas is not a "reciprocal" state under that Act.