Download PDF - Goodmans

Supreme Court
California
New York
Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life & Accident & Health
Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 455 U.S. 691, 102 S. Ct. 1357, 71 L. Ed. 2d 558 (1982). North
Carolina Association which intervened in Indiana rehabilitation proceeding,
submitted itself to Indiana court's jurisdiction and participated in the drafting of
the rehabilitation plan was bound by Indiana court's ruling that the company,
not the Association, was entitled to deposit in North Carolina.
Pennsylvania Life & Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Superior Court, 22 Cal. App. 4th
477, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 507 (1994). A foreign guaranty association does not have
minimum contacts with a foreign state when it merely assumed the obligations
of an insolvent company which previously transacted insurance business there.
In re Baldwin‐United Corp. Litigation, 122 F.R.D. 424 (S.D.N.Y 1986). Federal
district court to which claims were transferred by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation had personal jurisdiction over guaranty associations,
since associations were subject to jurisdiction of the district courts in their
respective states, where cases originated.
Jurisdiction – Subject Matter
Montana
Pennsylvania
Hicklin v. CSC Logic, Inc., 283 Mont. 298, 940 P.2d 447 (1997). The Pennsylvania
Life & Health Ins. Guaranty Assoc. assumed LACOP’s contractual obligations,
including the administration of a disability policy issued to Hicklin, a Montana
resident. Hicklin filed suit in Montana state court alleging improprieties with
respect to the claims handling practices of PLHIGA and CSC, which PLHIGA
retained to administer the policies. After service of process, Hicklin obtained a
default judgment. Respondents motion to vacate for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction was granted. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court reversed and
remanded finding that Hicklin’s claims were based on the independent torts of
CSC and PLHIGA, not upon any actions or omissions by LACOP, and that the
jurisdictional limitations from the PA Liquidation act did not therefore, preclude
the District Court from having subject matter jurisdiction over PLHIGA. The
court further rejected the respondents’ assertion of statutory immunity finding
that any such immunity was merely a defense which was waived when not
timely asserted, and that any such defense did not affect the subject matter
jurisdiction of the court.
Unisys Corp. v. Pennsylvania Life & Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 667 A.2d 1199 (Pa.
Commw. Ct. 1995), aff’d, 684 A.2d 546 (Pa. 1996). Commonwealth court had
jurisdiction over declaratory judgment claims by plan trustee, participant and
Department of Insurance seeking guaranty association coverage for group
limited premium deposit pension accounts issued by ELIC. The contracts were
held to be annuity contracts covered by the Act. The guaranty association was
only liable to the trustee who was a state resident.
Settlement – Authority of Association
New Mexico New Mexico Life Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Quinn & Co., Inc., 111 N.M. 750, 809 P.2d 1278
(1991). Settlement of disputed matters is squarely within the express powers of
the Association.
Standing
Fourth Circuit
North Carolina Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Alcatel Network
Systems, Inc., 876 F. Supp. 748 (E.D.N.C.), aff'd, 72 F.3d 127 (4th Cir. 1995) (Table
Decision). North Carolina Guaranty Association had no standing to assert ERISA
claims against pension plan trustees because it had not yet paid any benefits to
plan participants. Subrogation claim was not yet ripe.