Download PDF - Goodmans

Powers and Duties of the Association
licensed brokers or dealers; policyholders were not entitled to coverage when
the trust became insolvent. The Commissioner and the association had neither
the duty nor the ability to cause the trust to become a member.
Prevention of Insolvencies
Indiana Gibraltar Mutual Ins. Co. v. Hoosier Ins. Co., 486 N.E.2d 548 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985),
mod. on reh’g, 489 N.E.2d 592 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986). Letter to guaranty
association from agent of member insurer alleging another member was not in
compliance with state surplus requirements was not libelous. The allegations in
the letter were true and the guaranty association, because of its authority to
warn Commissioner of potential insolvencies, was not an improper party to
notify.
Subrogation
Miscellaneous Provisions
Washington Washington Life & Disability Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Adams, 47 Wash.App. 213, 734
P.2d 932 (1987). State Life and Disability Insurance Guaranty Association, which
was creditor of the insolvent insurer, had standing to maintain action against
individual shareholders of the insurer for superadded liability under state law in
an amount equal to the par value of their shares. The shareholders contended
that the association was nothing more than an estate creditor and, as such, had
no authority to seek enforcement of the state law remedy. Court rejected
standing challenge relying upon the subrogation rights acquired by the
association under state law and the duty of the association to marshal assets.
Immunity – Policyholder Actions
Immunity
Montana
Hicklin v. CSC Logic, Inc., 283 Mont. 298, 940 P.2d 447 (1997). The Pennsylvania
Life & Health Ins. Guaranty Association 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.
Prohibited Advertisement of Act in Insurance Sales and Notice to Policyholders
Constitutionality of Act
New Mexico New Mexico Life Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Quinn & Co., Inc., 111 N.M. 750, 809 P.2d 1278
(1991). The portion of the Act which prohibits use of the Association as part of