Download PDF - Goodmans

Florida
Hawaii
Fernandez v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 383 So.2d 974 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986). A
claimant alleged that the Association had been guilty of bad faith in refusing to
settle a claim where there was a resulting judgment over the policy limits. The
court determined that refusing to settle was one of the immune duties;
therefore, there could be no bad faith action.
Mendes v. Hawaii Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 87 Hawai'i 14, 950 P.2d 1214 (1998). In a claim
brought against the Fund alleging breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing
and tortious breach of contract, the court held the Fund was immune by statute
for claims based on the actions of the Fund through its agents and employees.
Immunity
Stay of Proceedings – In General
California Reed v. California Ins. Guar. Assn, 200 Cal. App. 3d 1269, 246 Cal. Rptr. 561
(1988). The court addressed the issue of who was responsible for setting aside
a default judgment. The court held that setting aside a default judgment was
within the normal course of defense assumed by the Fund.
Florida Jimmy Langs Auto Service v. Proctor, 667 So.2d 334 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).
The action was stayed during appeal.
Pennsylvania Shay v. Flight C Helicopter Services, Inc., 2003 Pa. Super. 86, 822 A.2d 1 (2003).
The plaintiff challenged the trial court’s decision to limit delay damages.
Damages were held to be the responsibility of the Pennsylvania Property and
Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (“PPCIGA”) at a pro rata portion based
upon PPCIGA’s statutory limit of liability. The defendant was insured under a
general liability insurance policy issued by American Eagle Insurance Company
(“American”). The plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against the defendant.
A year later American was declared insolvent and the trial court stayed the
proceeding for 90 days until PPCIGA could assume the defense. The jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff and the plaintiff filed a petition for delay
damages, which were granted by the trial court. The appeals court reversed the
lower court’s decision because PPCIGA did not have an opportunity to argue its
position regarding the amount of damages, no notice was served, and no
appearance was made on behalf of PPCIGA. Consequently, the court held that
since PPCIGA was not a party to the underlying action the trial court did not
have the authority to order delay damages against PPCIGA.
Texas
Willard v. David, 881 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994). In this case, the suit was
pending against the insured on the date of insolvency. The court stayed the
action for the six month period, which allows time for the Fund to prepare a
defense.
Miscellaneous
In General
Minnesota Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Dynamic Air, Inc., 702 N.W.2d 237 (Minn. 2005).
The Supreme Court of Minnesota held a party insured by an insolvent insurer
may be liable to a claimant for any portion of the claim that constitutes the
difference between the $300,000 statutory maximum available from MIGA and
the liability limit of the insurer’s policy.
Minnesota Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Integra Telecom, Inc., 697 N.W.2d 223 (Minn. Ct.
App. 2005). Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Association sought reimbursement
of a workers comp claim against the insured after MIGA reached a settlement