• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Reinsurance Regulation / Reorganization and Liquidation / STATE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION CAN PURSUE COURT ACTION SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FOR IMPROPERLY PAID CLAIMS

STATE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION CAN PURSUE COURT ACTION SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FOR IMPROPERLY PAID CLAIMS

February 14, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Reliance Insurance Company in Liquidation (the “Liquidator”) petitioned a Pennsylvania state court for a declaratory judgment holding that Aramark Corporation must reimburse certain state guaranty associations (“GAs”) for claims allegedly improperly paid to Aramark and subsequently presented to the Reliance Estate by the GAs for payment. The Liquidator also sought a declaration that Aramark’s claims against the Estate should be given low priority. The gravamen of the dispute is that Aramark purportedly received coverage for the same claims under a contingent liability policy (“CLP”) issued by Inter-Ocean Reinsurance Company, which had been backed by Reliance collateral. The GAs intervened seeking a declaration that Aramark must exhaust the coverage limits under the CLP and reimburse them for claims that were covered by the CLP.

The court dismissed the Liquidator’s claims for lack of standing, finding that it could not sue on the GAs’ behalf, and, further, held that claim priority should be determined through the administrative process before the court gets involved. The Pennsylvania court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the foreign GAs’ claims, but held that the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Security Fund could continue to pursue recovery of claims that were allegedly improperly paid to Aramark. Reliance Ins. Co. in Liquidation v. Aramark Corp., Case No. 5 REL 2008 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Dec. 9, 2011).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Reorganization and Liquidation, Week's Best Posts

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.