A. The superior court is vested with exclusive original jurisdiction of delinquency proceedings under this article and is authorized to make all necessary and proper orders to carry out the purposes of this article.
B. The venue of delinquency proceedings against a domestic, foreign or alien insurer shall be in Maricopa county.
C. Delinquency proceedings pursuant to this article constitute the sole and exclusive method of liquidating, rehabilitating, reorganizing or conserving an insurer, and a court shall not entertain a petition for the commencement of such proceedings unless it has been filed in the name of the state on the relation of the director of the department of insurance and financial institutions.
D. An appeal shall lie to the supreme court from an order granting or refusing rehabilitation, liquidation or conservation and from every other order in delinquency proceedings having the character of a final order as to the particular portion of the proceedings embraced therein.
Notes of Decisions
U.S. Fin. Corp. v. Warfield, 839 F. Supp. 684 (D. Ariz. 1993).
· cites it 18× “See A.R.S. §§ 20-612, 20-614. Warfield asserts that these laws were enacted “for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance” and are impaired to the extent this court exerts jurisdiction in this case pursuant to 28 U.”
State v. Arizona Pension Plan., 739 P.2d 1373 (Ariz. 1987).
· cites it 2× “1986) (emphasis added); see also A.R.S. § 20-612. We hold that this grant of implied power is broad enough to authorize the Director to fairly and efficiently enforce the insureds’ right to recover valid claims for policy benefits and commissions from their agents.”
Am. Bonding Co. v. Coastal Metal Sales, 679 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
“2d DCA 1963). Both states have statutes permitting appeals from these orders, implying that such an order might not otherwise be a final appealable order.”
Irwin v. Pac. Am. Life Ins. Co., 457 P.2d 736 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969).
“§ 20-612. Pursuant to this chapter, delinquency proceedings were instituted against the defendant company because it was insolvent and had wilfully violated its charter.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.