Download PDF - Goodmans

5/546, because of Illinois’ intent to prevent duplication of recovery and protect
the public by maintaining its Fund.
Indiana Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Blickensderfer, 778 N.E.2d 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
Physicians sued for medical malpractice filed declaratory judgment against the
Insurance Guaranty Association, alleging the Association had a duty to defend
and indemnify them based on their medical malpractice insurer’s insolvency.
Association refused to defend and indemnify under Indiana Code § 27‐6‐8‐11’s
non‐duplication of recovery provisions because claimant’s health insurance
provider had paid claimant in excess of physicians’ malpractice limits. The court
found that § 27‐6‐8‐11’s requirement to exhaust claims against other insurance
policies was modified by the phrase “covered claims” to the exclusion of
claimant’s claims for direct health insurance benefits because these benefits did
not arise out of and were not within the coverage of an insurance policy of an
insolvent insurer. Consequently, the Association was not entitled to a setoff.
Additionally, because claimant had not been paid all the benefits he was entitled
to under the Association’s laws, the Association was obligated to indemnify and
defend physicians.
Iowa Stecker v. Iowa Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 465 N.W.2d 887 (Iowa 1991). The court
determined that the legislature intended both uninsured and underinsured
motorist coverages to be included in the category of risks.
Missouri Garrett v. Overland Garage & Parts, Inc., 882 S.W.2d 188 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
The court held that a lower court’s verdict was to be reduced by the amount of
the workers’ compensation award that had been received.
New Jersey George Dapper, Inc. v. New Jersey Prop. Liab. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 2008 WL 2445261
(N.J. Super. Ct.2008). Dapper appealed from a trial court order granting
summary judgment to New Jersey Property‐Liability Insurance Guaranty
Association (“NJPLIGA”), the Appellate Court affirmed. Legion Insurance
Company had been declared insolvent in 2003 and NJPLIGA assumed its
obligations. NJPLIGA’s liability was capped at $300,000 and it was required to
reduce its coverage by the amount of uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage
benefits received by the injured party. As a result, NJPLIGA was only liable for
$50,000 dollars. The Supreme Court held that NJPLIGA would no longer be
entitled to set‐offs against its cap and the UM benefits received by the injured
party. NJPLIGA argued that its obligation should be determined by the state of
law as of the date of the settlement. As a result, it argued the calculation of
$50,000 should not change. The Appellate court upheld this argument that the
settlements are not invalidated by subsequent changes in the law.
Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 172 N.J. 504, 800 A.2d 54 (2002). At
issue was the amount of credit the New Jersey Property‐Liability Insurance
Guaranty Association (“NJPLIGA”) was entitled to receive because of the
Pennsylvania Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association’s
(“PPCIGA") primary liability. The plaintiff had several actions filed against it and
sought coverage from its insurance companies, three of which became
insolvent. As a result, NJPLIGA and PPCIGA were added as defendants to the
action. The court held that NJPLIGA was entitled to a credit equal to the
statutory maximum amount payable by PPCIGA. It reasoned that the holding
was in conformity with the New Jersey Legislature’s intent in creating NJPLIGA
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Oglesby v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 832 P.2d 834 (Okla. 1992). The court held that
the Fund should be credited for any amounts that the insured received from the
solvent insurer.
Brostoski v. Lucchino, 2003 Pa. Super. 406, 835 A.2d 751 (2003). The
Pennsylvania Property Insurance and Casualty Guaranty Association (“PPICGA”)