Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Navigating State Guaranty Funds: What to Expect When Your Insurer Is Insolvent
Your insurance company is insolvent. Now what? Your state guaranty fund may provide some relief, but is it worth pursuing? That depends.
Every state has enacted some form of a property and casualty insurance guaranty fund intended to provide insurance coverage to policyholders whose insurers have become insolvent. The stated purpose of the state guaranty fund is typically set forth in the statute, but generally they are designed to, among other things: 1) provide a mechanism for the payment of 'covered claims' (as defined in the statute); 2) avoid delay and reduce financial loss to policyholders because of insurer insolvency; and 3) assist in the prevention of insurer insolvencies. See, e.g., Ohio Rev. Code '3955.03. The theory behind a guaranty fund is that, upon insolvency and with respect to any 'covered claims,' the guaranty fund will step into the shoes of the insurer. As a result, a state guaranty fund acquires some of the same duties and obligations of your insurance company.
Despite this reassuring purpose, when a claim becomes subject to a state guaranty fund, there are several procedural aspects and statutory limitations that are not present when pursuing an insurance claim against a solvent insurer. Some policyholders can expect to recover significantly less for their claims than that which would have been available from their insurer. Some policyholders may even be required to reimburse the guaranty fund for any amounts that the guaranty fund pays on its behalf for a claim. These issues become more complicated if the policyholder does business in more than one state or if the insured has claims or lawsuits pending in multiple states. For these reasons, potential guaranty fund claims require significant analysis at the front end, and recovery from a guaranty fund may not be worth pursuing.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.