Download PDF - Goodmans

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
Krueger v. Tabor, 546 So.2d 1317 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 1989). A receiver was appointed for the insolvent insurance carrier, a Texas domiciliary. Although certain intervenors and third party claimants properly served the receiver, plaintiffs failed to do so. The receiver challenged judgment for the plaintiffs alleging lack of jurisdiction due to improper service and judgment for intervenors/third party claimants alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to exclusive jurisdiction in the Texas liquidation court. The court reversed judgment in favor of plaintiffs, holding the judgment null and void for the reason that the receiver had not been served with process. The court upheld judgment in favor of the intervenors and third party claimants (who had properly served the receiver), finding the Louisiana courts had subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy because Texas is not a "reciprocal" state under the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act. Therefore, the Louisiana claimants were not required to bring their action in the Texas Court which appointed the receiver. Massachusetts Michigan Clentimack v. AA Transportation Co., Inc., 2003 Mass. Super. LEXIS 373; Int’l Church of the Foursquare Gospel v. City of Fitchburg, 17 Mass. L. Rep. 30 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2003); Selinga v. Dukakis, 2003 Mass. Super. LEXIS 355; Jack‐O‐ Lantern Spectacular, Inc. v. Usovicz, 16 Mass. L. Rep. 335 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2003). In each of these four cases, the action had been stayed for many months pursuant to a rehabilitation order involving the defendant’s insurer in another state. The Court held that each case should proceed despite the stay because after such an extended delay, the interests of justice before the present court outweighed the justifications for continuing the stay. American Druggists' Insurance Company v. Carlson, No. G85‐340 CA7, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17719 (W.D. Mich. 1989). The Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio issued an order declaring: (1) an insurer insolvent, (2) appointing the Ohio Superintendent of Insurance to liquidate the insurer, (3) named the Attorney General as counsel of record for the insurer, (4) gave notice to all attorneys previously representing the insurer that their authority to represent the insurer was terminated and (5) ordered former counsel to return all files, documents, fees and other assets and properties of the insurer to the liquidator. The insurer brought the case in diversity; a Magistrate's Order denied the insurer's motion for an order requiring predecessor counsel to turn over files in its possession and granted the predecessor counsel a lien on any original documents. Insurer appealed, arguing that the Magistrate erred in not enforcing the Ohio court order and that the grant of lien was improper since Michigan law provides that the proper forum for the attorneys to assert a claim against the insurer is in the Ohio court which is liquidating the insurer. On appeal, this court held that since the files were located outside of Ohio, they were located outside the liquidation court's in rem jurisdiction and thus the Ohio liquidation court's order is not entitled to full faith and credit by a Michigan court. It was concluded that the liquidation court lacked personal jurisdiction over the attorneys in so far as it sought to compel them to turn over files. Thus, the insurer's remedy was to file in a Michigan court to have its rights in the disputed files determined instead of relying on the liquidation court order. The court did find the Magistrate's Order to be clearly erroneous to the extent that it imposed any liens in favor of the attorneys since the proper forum for the attorneys to present their claim is the Ohio liquidation court. Keehn v. Charles J. Rogers, Inc., 311 Mich. 416, 18 N.W.2d 877 (1945). In an action by a receiver to collect an assessment where no demand for the payment of the assessment was made within one year after termination of policy, though the policyholder was an insured within one year preceding the liquidation proceedings, there was no liability for the assessment, as the statue
Page 1 and 2:
REFERENCE HANDBOOK ON INSURANCE COM
Page 3 and 4:
Contributing Editors Cross‐Border
Page 5 and 6:
Formal Proceedings ‐ Constitution
Page 7 and 8:
Priorities ‐ Interstate Claimants
Page 9 and 10:
Part III PART IV APPENDIX D. Bermud
Page 172 and 173:
Rhode Island Statutes TITLE 27 Insu
Page 174 and 175:
(17) "Policyholder" means an insure
Page 176 and 177:
(3) All creditors, assumption polic
Page 178 and 179:
(2) If, at any time, the conditions
Page 180 and 181:
Run‐Off New York Seaton Ins. Co.
Page 182 and 183:
as writs of seizure, were necessary
Page 184 and 185:
Igel v. Phillips, 183 A.D. 220, 169
Page 186 and 187:
wind up its affairs, even if the no
Page 188 and 189:
insolvency, including the issue of
Page 190 and 191:
over action would: (i) defeat domic
Page 192 and 193:
the Commissioner of Insurance on be
Page 194 and 195:
Sixth Circuit AmSouth Bank v. Dale,
Page 196 and 197:
action did not automatically preclu
Page 198 and 199:
proceedings. The New York insurance
Page 200 and 201:
independent receivership proceeding
Page 202 and 203:
Connecticut Florida Grasso v. City
Page 204 and 205:
instance, because the regulation of
Page 206 and 207:
company filed a motion for declarat
Page 208 and 209:
Commissioner of Ins. v. Mid‐Ameri
Page 210 and 211:
district court had exclusive jurisd
Page 212 and 213:
SEC v. Republic National Life Ins.
Page 214 and 215:
legislature granted exclusive juris
Page 216 and 217:
Rejecting the liquidator's motion,
Page 218 and 219:
time as an administrative claim had
Page 220 and 221:
mandate application of Florida's in
Page 222 and 223:
This simple declarative sentence pr
Page 224 and 225:
its earlier holding [Bonura v. Unit
Page 226 and 227:
In re Application for an Order Stay
Page 228 and 229:
to prosecution of claims against hi
Page 230 and 231:
were closely intertwined, the entir
Page 232 and 233:
South Carolina Texas New South Life
Page 234 and 235:
the insurance code. The trial court
Page 236 and 237:
within the meaning of the insurance
Page 238 and 239:
was overbroad in delaying indefinit
Page 240 and 241:
financial institutions to transfer
Page 242 and 243:
entities were in fact a "single bus
Page 244 and 245:
the company in that other state to
Page 246 and 247:
easoning that: 1) its earlier findi
Page 248 and 249:
McConnell v. All‐Coverage Insuran
Page 250 and 251:
company. The court also found that
Page 252 and 253:
impermissible because they were not
Page 254 and 255:
contrary appellate court judgment,
Page 256 and 257:
exhaust the pro rata shares of solv
Page 258 and 259:
asserted a priority despite the fac
Page 260 and 261:
The question presented was whether
Page 262 and 263:
Cir. 2000). The Ninth Circuit adopt
Page 264 and 265:
entity with those conferred or with
Page 266 and 267:
Pennsylvania court had exclusive ju
Page 268 and 269:
liquidator argued that Ohio’s sta
Page 270 and 271:
Vermont Costle v. Fremont Indemnity
Page 272 and 273:
(“Munich”) and NAC Reinsurance
Page 274 and 275:
Pine Top Ins. Co. v. Continental Re
Page 276 and 277:
incapable of being performed," foun
Page 278:
completion of the plan of arbitrati
Page 281 and 282:
the policy make specific provision
Page 283 and 284:
the catastrophe policy prevents “
Page 285 and 286:
sought only money damages. 3 Hence,
Page 287 and 288:
Commissioner has reasonable grounds
Page 289 and 290:
policyholders were brought against
Page 291 and 292:
a supervision‐release order for a
Page 293 and 294:
secure a court‐ordered receiversh
Page 295 and 296:
no liability exists for any acts ta
Page 297 and 298:
stay of any proceeding in which an
Page 299 and 300:
Fields v. Fidelity General Ins. Co.
Page 301 and 302:
Illinois insurance code is vested i
Page 303 and 304:
Michigan Daniel v. Citizens' Mutual
Page 305 and 306:
appointment of a receiver to wind u
Page 307 and 308:
independent actuarial firm, and all
Page 309 and 310:
owned by one corporation, proposed
Page 311 and 312:
den'd, 126 N.J. 389 (1991). The cou
Page 313 and 314:
constitutional the statute under wh
Page 315 and 316:
The circuit judge's denial of plain
Page 317 and 318:
duplication provision of the PPCIGA
Page 319 and 320:
New York National Union Fire Ins. C
Page 321 and 322:
insurance companies pursuant to sta
Page 323 and 324:
Matter of Morgan, 277 N.Y. 203, 14
Page 325 and 326:
Alabama Arizona California Moody v.
Page 327 and 328:
Schenek v. Citizens Casualty Co., 6
Page 329 and 330:
disclosed in its annual statement.
Page 331 and 332:
insurance company, the court held t
Page 333 and 334:
Pennsylvania's interest in investig
Page 335 and 336:
Pennsylvania Commonwealth ex rel. C
Page 337 and 338:
non‐mandatory preference for the
Page 339 and 340:
Powers and Duties of the Rehabilita
Page 341 and 342:
the insolvency clause of a reinsura
Page 343 and 344:
Financial Indemnity Company v. Supe
Page 345 and 346:
ecause they had constructive notice
Page 347 and 348:
Illinois law does not provide the D
Page 349 and 350:
claimed. Although the code allows t
Page 351 and 352:
040(3)(a) or 304‐33.190(2). Rathe
Page 353 and 354:
to the state's unemployment compens
Page 355 and 356:
State ex rel. ISC Financial Corp. v
Page 357 and 358:
authorizing the Liquidator to prope
Page 359 and 360:
implement the statutory liquidation
Page 361 and 362:
that trust claimants will recover a
Page 363 and 364:
showing that the rehabilitator’s
Page 365 and 366:
insurer, sued former owner of insur
Page 367 and 368:
Brainard v. Foster, Civil Action No
Page 369 and 370:
Flowers v. Tennessee Trucking Ass
Page 371 and 372:
the insurer under Texas law; and th
Page 373 and 374:
state court against B.C. Rogers, an
Page 375 and 376:
People ex rel. Baylor v. Multi‐St
Page 377 and 378:
equiring the insurer to produce doc
Page 379 and 380:
failed to demonstrate to the contra
Page 381 and 382:
intervention. It is not an abuse of
Page 383 and 384:
eview the actions of the insurance
Page 385 and 386:
not reported losses (IBNR). The Sup
Page 387 and 388:
Commonwealth tort claims against th
Page 389 and 390:
Liquidation Act. On a petition for
Page 391 and 392:
defendant to bring the action to th
Page 393 and 394:
Main Ins. Co. v. Bradford, Williams
Page 395 and 396:
proceedings against an insolvent Ne
Page 397 and 398:
Matter of Title, Etc., Co. of Buffa
Page 399 and 400:
the R.C. 3955.19 stay provision as
Page 401 and 402:
Casualty Insurance Guaranty Associa
Page 403 and 404:
property without a hearing. The Cou
Page 405 and 406:
consent of the liquidators, the bro
Page 407 and 408:
ecording of an order of liquidation
Page 409 and 410:
Florida Imagine Ins. Co. v. State o
Page 411 and 412:
executory contracts, and the insure
Page 413 and 414:
procured new policies in a solvent
Page 415 and 416:
Safeway liable for the entire amoun
Page 417 and 418:
even lower interest rate than that
Page 419 and 420:
North Carolina Texas North Carolina
Page 421 and 422:
an individual and official capacity
Page 423 and 424:
enterprise with United States Gener
Page 425 and 426:
were not ultra vires acts. There we
Page 427 and 428:
authorized by state law to petition
Page 429 and 430:
Stamp v. Touche Ross & Co., 263 Ill
Page 431 and 432:
control, or possession of the insur
Page 433 and 434:
offers to compromise because severa
Page 435 and 436:
insolvent insurer brought an action
Page 437 and 438:
"interested parties" in a proceedin
Page 439 and 440:
Assets of the Insolvent Insurer's E
Page 441 and 442:
Garamendi v. SDI Vendome, No. CV 02
Page 443 and 444:
for personal injury claim brought a
Page 445 and 446:
transacting any insurance business
Page 447 and 448:
Bent v. Hart, 10 Mo. App. 143 (1881
Page 449 and 450:
discretion allowed policyholders to
Page 451 and 452:
In re New State Life Ins. Co., 23 P
Page 453 and 454:
ecover a subscription fund executed
Page 455 and 456:
Pursuant to D.C. Code Ann. § 35‐
Page 457 and 458:
ecause all the directors of the dis
Page 459 and 460:
agree on whether Kentucky statutory
Page 461 and 462:
W. J. Jones & Son v. Independence I
Page 463 and 464:
precluding liquidator's avoidance o
Page 465 and 466:
association's directors for monies
Page 467 and 468:
a Transit insured. Fifteen months l
Page 469 and 470:
court granted the motion. On appeal
Page 471 and 472:
unearned portion of the premium was
Page 473 and 474:
the insolvent Mission Insurance Com
Page 475 and 476:
Drake v. Rollo, 7 Fed. Cas. Pg. 105
Page 477 and 478:
judge to act as presiding judge ove
Page 479 and 480:
$25,000 compromise would be paid to
Page 481 and 482:
express purpose is to avoid financi
Page 483 and 484:
einsurance contract against moneys
Page 485 and 486:
provision and therefore its ruling
Page 487 and 488:
complaint, the defendants would not
Page 489 and 490:
as an offset against the insolvent
Page 491 and 492:
Swiss Re made payments to Protectiv
Page 493 and 494:
directors were not included in that
Page 495 and 496:
purported rescission by the company
Page 497 and 498:
members. The court further held tha
Page 499 and 500:
instituting of the receivership pro
Page 501 and 502:
would prevent a multiplicity of act
Page 503 and 504:
assessments against members of a do
Page 505 and 506:
Richards v. Hale, 14 O.C.D. 468, 1
Page 507 and 508:
Wetmore v. Scalf, 85 S.C. 285, 67 S
Page 509 and 510:
mutual insurance company because Wi
Page 511 and 512:
out liquidation assessment powers i
Page 513 and 514:
their insurer became insolvent. Any
Page 515 and 516:
insolvent carrier, sought to interp
Page 517 and 518:
The Home Insurance Co. v. Hooper, 2
Page 519 and 520:
coverage. The court held that cover
Page 521 and 522:
insurance, and that Mission was not
Page 523 and 524:
contract. Further, as the parties t
Page 525 and 526:
agreement. The Colorado receiver cl
Page 527 and 528:
preliquidation assets that could be
Page 529 and 530:
agreements with Legion Insurance Co
Page 531 and 532:
prediction, and was neither arbitra
Page 533 and 534:
Guaranty Association (“PPCIGA”)
Page 535 and 536:
contrary holding would permit these
Page 537 and 538:
People ex rel. Bolton v. Progressiv
Page 539 and 540:
where the solvency of the company,
Page 541 and 542:
agent of all premiums collected by
Page 543 and 544:
subsequent to institution of delinq
Page 545 and 546:
corporate mismanagement and account
Page 547 and 548:
Mendel v. Garner, 283 Ark. 473, 678
Page 549 and 550:
The lower court denied the claim be
Page 551 and 552:
definition, a “covered claim,”
Page 553 and 554:
Missouri MSEJ, LLC, v. Transit Cas.
Page 555 and 556:
medical malpractice action, which i
Page 557 and 558:
Suit was transferred to the court o
Page 559 and 560:
within policy limits. The insolvent
Page 561 and 562:
alleged negligence of an insured of
Page 563 and 564:
Arkansas Colorado Florida Baldwin
Page 565 and 566:
liquidator was entitled to rely upo
Page 567 and 568:
Ohio Covington v. Ind. Dep’t of N
Page 569 and 570:
River abstention doctrines did not
Page 571 and 572:
directly against manufacturer. The
Page 573 and 574:
insurance commissioner entered into
Page 575 and 576:
un ten months and twenty‐six days
Page 577 and 578:
policies were delivered, the state
Page 579 and 580:
Accordingly, the manufacturer sough
Page 581 and 582:
Sizemore v. United Physicians Ins.
Page 583 and 584:
insolvency. The court found for pla
Page 585 and 586:
equires all claims against the rece
Page 587 and 588:
cancelled by order of the court, th
Page 589 and 590:
Dewey v. Davis, 82 Wis. 500, N.W. 7
Page 591 and 592:
April 18, the filing of the Missour
Page 593 and 594:
Texas Buckner v. Lloyd's Ins. Co. o
Page 595 and 596:
payment by the California Insurance
Page 597 and 598:
the tortfeasors to recover its paym
Page 599 and 600:
Ga. App. 660, 440 S.E.2d 254 (1994)
Page 601 and 602:
Act. The Court also noted that whet
Page 603 and 604:
opportunity to settle.” The court
Page 605 and 606:
jurisdictions that did find associa
Page 607 and 608:
Ohio Lake Hospital System, Inc. v.
Page 609 and 610:
award. It became insolvent, however
Page 611 and 612:
Rhulen advanced claim payments to T
Page 613 and 614:
entitled to coverage from the Illin
Page 615 and 616:
the negligence claim, brought by th
Page 617 and 618:
insurer did not thereby release fro
Page 619 and 620:
when contingent claims must necessa
Page 621 and 622:
In Matter of Liquidation Of Integri
Page 623 and 624:
from the time damages are certain o
Page 625 and 626:
In re N.Y. Surety Co., 723 N.Y.S.2d
Page 627 and 628:
Governmental/Superpriority Claims S
Page 629 and 630:
Reliance Ins. Co. v. Shriver, Inc.,
Page 631 and 632:
Georgia Boyd v. Wright, 148 Ga. 216
Page 633 and 634: policyholders, judgment creditors o
Page 635 and 636: when it appears that such funds or
Page 637 and 638: within the insurance statutes. Cred
Page 639 and 640: Priorities ‐ Federal U.S. Supreme
Page 641 and 642: statute was preempted by the federa
Page 643 and 644: instituting or taking further actio
Page 645 and 646: Florida Dilme v. SBP Serv., Inc. an
Page 647 and 648: Massachusetts Commissioner of Insur
Page 649 and 650: New York Finkelstein v. Van Schaick
Page 651 and 652: Texas Op. Att'y. Gen. WW‐795 (Tex
Page 653 and 654: Illinois People ex rel. Potts v. Co
Page 655 and 656: Arizona Colorado State ex rel. Low
Page 657 and 658: equirements had not been complied w
Page 659 and 660: Michigan Commissioner of Insurance
Page 661 and 662: commissioner certain securities for
Page 663 and 664: State ex rel. Cincinnati Life Assn'
Page 665 and 666: and without assets in trust in Flor
Page 667 and 668: State ex rel. Burgess v. Crabbe, 11
Page 669 and 670: jurisdiction over the attorneys in
Page 671 and 672: Pennsylvania Lewycka v. Springfield
Page 673 and 674: meaning, held that the Indiana clai
Page 675 and 676: Rose v. Fid. Mut'l Life Ins. Co., 2
Page 677 and 678: uniform law or that it was necessar
Page 679 and 680: of incorporation of a mutual insure
Page 681 and 682: jurisdiction over that litigation f
Page 683: ehabilitation in Indiana and had ob
Page 687 and 688: and, because of the guarantees, for
Page 689 and 690: Rhode Island injunction by arguing
Page 691 and 692: In prior proceedings in this case,
Page 693 and 694: state law issues and was contingent
Page 695 and 696: Bryant v. Shields, Britton & Fraser
Page 697 and 698: against the Wisconsin Insurance Sec
Page 699 and 700: PART II Cross‐Border Run‐Offs a
Page 701 and 702: CASE(S) Highland Insurance Company
Page 703 and 704: CASE(S) Hatteras Reinsurance Ltd NR
Page 705 and 706: • The Court in which the Chapter
Page 707 and 708: As previously noted, of the sevente
Page 709 and 710: WFUM Pool Solvent Schemes ~ In re G
Page 711 and 712: arrangement, including solvent run
Page 713 and 714: 5. Chapter 15 ~ Official Text 1501.
Page 715 and 716: (d) §1502. Definitions. (2) an ind
Page 717 and 718: (c) (d) A request for comity or coo
Page 719 and 720: (a) (b) If the decision or certific
Page 721 and 722: §1521. Relief that may be granted
Page 723 and 724: (4) approval or implementation of a
Page 725 and 726: B. United Kingdom ‐‐ The Positi
Page 727 and 728: 1. majority votes in favour of the
Page 729 and 730: eported claims, was not of great im
Page 731 and 732: and Jersey. The English schemes wou
Page 733 and 734: Life Assurance Limited (FPLLA) both
Page 735 and 736:
MB Group Plc, Re (1989) 5 B.C.C. 68
Page 737 and 738:
issued a third circular which state
Page 739 and 740:
court had jurisdiction to sanction
Page 741 and 742:
The Judge (Roger Kaye Q.C.) allowed
Page 743 and 744:
the agreement would not be avoided
Page 745 and 746:
submitted that cover had been provi
Page 747 and 748:
liquidators and in the English bank
Page 749 and 750:
court did not strike out the petiti
Page 751 and 752:
Stein so that he could pursue it. B
Page 753 and 754:
Part III of the Winding‐up and Re
Page 755 and 756:
v. Proceedings in Canada to Assist
Page 757 and 758:
D. Bermuda ‐‐ The Bermuda Persp
Page 759:
Hong Kong Court to restructure the
Page 791 and 792:
Excluded Lines - Ocean Marine Louis
Page 793 and 794:
Covered Claim - Unearned Premium co
Page 795 and 796:
Oregon Corvallis Aero Service, Inc.
Page 797 and 798:
purposes of joint and several liabi
Page 799 and 800:
Affiliated FM Ins. Co. v. State, 33
Page 801 and 802:
Heninger v. Riley, 317 Pa. Super. 5
Page 803 and 804:
assumed the obligations of Dr. Lucc
Page 805 and 806:
Florida Hawaii Fernandez v. Florida
Page 859 and 860:
Case Law Digest Supplement LIFE & H
Page 861 and 862:
Texas Messagephone, Inc., et al v.
Page 863 and 864:
were invested in four group annuity
Page 865 and 866:
Alaska Arizona Illinois Unisys Corp
Page 867 and 868:
Minnesota Honeywell, Inc. v. Minnes
Page 869 and 870:
plan participants rather than the G
Page 871 and 872:
esponsible for attorneys’ fees an
Page 873 and 874:
Alaska Arizona Indiana Unisys Corp.
Page 875 and 876:
Federal Jurisdiction - Preemption c
Page 877 and 878:
Supreme Court California New York U
Page 879 and 880:
Assessments Assessments - In Genera
Page 881 and 882:
the sales transaction is not uncons
Page 883 and 884:
State Department of Insurance Insur
Page 885 and 886:
Kentucky State Department of Insura
Page 887 and 888:
New Jersey New Mexico State Departm
Page 889 and 890:
Virginia Washington State Departmen
Page 891 and 892:
© 2009 National Association of Ins
Page 893 and 894:
CO Marcy Morrison Commissioner (Wes
Page 895 and 896:
KS Sandy Praeger Commissioner NAIC
Page 897 and 898:
NH Roger A. Sevigny Commissioner NA
Page 899 and 900:
TN Leslie A. Newman Commissioner (V
Page 901 and 902:
NAIC OFFICES NAIC Central Office: 2
Page 903 and 904:
GUARANTY FUND DIRECTORY Updated 02/
Page 905 and 906:
Page 907 and 908:
Page 909 and 910:
Page 911 and 912:
Page 913 and 914:
Page 915 and 916:
Page 917 and 918:
Page 919 and 920:
Page 921 and 922:
nolhga.com :: state ga contact info
Page 923 and 924:
Page 925 and 926:
Page 927 and 928:
show all

Download PDF - Goodmans

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?