Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-667

Obligations of the fund

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The fund is obligated solely to the extent of the covered claims existing during any of the following periods:

1. Before the determination of insolvency and arising within thirty days after the determination of insolvency.

2. Before the policy expiration date if less than thirty days after the determination of insolvency.

3. Before the insured replaces the policy or on request effects cancellation, if the insured does so within thirty days of the determination of insolvency.

B. Except for obligations arising out of a covered workers' compensation claim for benefits under title 23, chapter 6, such obligation shall include only that amount of each covered claim that is more than one hundred dollars and that is less than three hundred thousand dollars or an amount of more than twenty-five dollars but not exceeding ten thousand dollars for a covered claim for the return of unearned premiums. In no event shall the fund be obligated to a policyholder or claimant in any amount in excess of the face amount of the policy from which the claim arises.

C. The fund is deemed the insurer to the extent of its obligation on the covered claims and to such extent shall have all rights, duties and obligations of the insolvent insurer as if the insurer had not become insolvent. Notwithstanding any other law, the fund is not obligated to pay any amount that does not constitute a payment of a covered claim, including taxable costs, attorney fees or interest that could be awarded or any additional liabilities or obligations that might otherwise exist or accrue against the insolvent insurer if the insurer had not become insolvent.

D. Any settlement of a covered claim that is entered into with any insured or claimant within four months before the determination of insolvency and that has not been paid is voidable by the fund for six months after the determination of the insolvency or six months after the fund discovers or should have discovered the settlement, whichever is later.

E. Notwithstanding subsection D of this section, a settlement or commutation of a workers' compensation claim approved by an award of the industrial commission that has become final pursuant to section 23-942 or 23-943 is not voidable.

F. The fund is not bound by any settlement that is more than the fund's limits of liability established by this article.

G. Beginning on the effective date of this amendment to this section, the fund shall assume all contractual rights and obligations of the industrial commission regarding the administration of workers' compensation insolvent carrier claims if the industrial commission has contracted with a third-party processor to administer claims.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases, 1973–2008 · leading case: Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Ueki
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Ueki (1986) arizctapp · cites it 19× “An analysis of the Fund’s obligations relating to appellant’s claim must begin with a consideration of A.R.S. § 20-667. A.R.S. § 20-667(A) provides that the Fund is obligated “to the extent of the covered claims” that exist during specified periods of time with reference to the…”
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund (1999) arizctapp · cites it 11× “2d 1147, 1148 (1997), quoting A.R.S. §§ 20-667 and 20-661(3). “A ‘covered claim’ is an unpaid claim arising ‘out of and ‘within the coverage’ of a policy written by an insolvent insurer to which the statutes apply.”
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Helme (1987) ariz · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 20-667(A). 8 Helme and NSPC breached this duty to cooperate, according to the Fund, and “were obviously willing to say anything necessary to save their personal backsides.”
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Herder (1988) ariz · cites it 9× “In two critical areas, A.R.S. § 20-667 limits the Fund’s obligations without regard to what the insolvent insurer’s obligations may have been.”
Betancourt v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Fund (1991) arizctapp · cites it 15× “The court explained: In two critical areas, A.R.S. § 20-667 limits the Fund’s obligations without regard to what the insolvent insurer’s obligations may have been.”
Clark Equipment Co. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund (1997) arizctapp · cites it 25× “First, Clark’s failure to obtain the Fund’s approval of its defense counsel does not relieve the Fund of its separate obligation, under the Integrity policy, to defend Clark.”
Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD (1987) ariz · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 20-667 (Supp.1986). The Fund retained attorney Edward Hochuli to represent the Barmats.”
Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund (1990) arizctapp · cites it 6× “§ 20-662(0- In this regard, § 20-666(A) provides: The [guaranty fund] board shall assess each member insurer, as a condition of such insurer’s authority to transact insurance in this state, in such amounts as are necessary to pay the obligations of the fund pursuant to § 20-667…”
A.H. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund (1997) ariz · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. §§ 20-667 and 20-661(3). A “covered claim” is an unpaid claim arising “out of’ and “within the coverage” of a policy written by an insolvent insurer to which the statutes apply.”
Knipp v. Ariz. Prop. & Cas. Ins. (1987) arizctapp · cites it 8× “The personal representative and surviving beneficiaries in a wrongful death action (the Knipps) filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a determination that under A.R.S. § 20-667 the maximum obligation of the Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund (the Fund) is…”
Knipp v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund (1987) arizctapp · cites it 8× “The personal representative and surviving beneficiaries in a wrongful death action (the Knipps) filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a determination that under A.R.S. § 20-667 the maximum obligation of the Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund (the Fund) is…”
Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD (1986) arizctapp · cites it 2× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 20-667(B), the Fund may not pay more than $100,000 on any covered claim.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-667(A) — 7 cases
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Helme (1987) ariz “A.R.S. § 20-667(A). 8 Helme and NSPC breached this duty to cooperate, according to the Fund, and “were obviously willing to say anything necessary to save their personal backsides.”
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Ueki (1986) arizctapp “An analysis of the Fund’s obligations relating to appellant’s claim must begin with a consideration of A.R.S. § 20-667. A.R.S. § 20-667(A) provides that the Fund is obligated “to the extent of the covered claims” that exist during specified periods of time with reference to the…”
Betancourt v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Fund (1991) arizctapp “The court explained: In two critical areas, A.R.S. § 20-667 limits the Fund’s obligations without regard to what the insolvent insurer’s obligations may have been.”
Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund (1990) arizctapp “§ 20-662(0- In this regard, § 20-666(A) provides: The [guaranty fund] board shall assess each member insurer, as a condition of such insurer’s authority to transact insurance in this state, in such amounts as are necessary to pay the obligations of the fund pursuant to § 20-667…”
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund (1999) arizctapp “2d 1147, 1148 (1997), quoting A.R.S. §§ 20-667 and 20-661(3). “A ‘covered claim’ is an unpaid claim arising ‘out of and ‘within the coverage’ of a policy written by an insolvent insurer to which the statutes apply.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-667(B) — 14 cases
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Helme (1987) ariz “A.R.S. § 20-667(A). 8 Helme and NSPC breached this duty to cooperate, according to the Fund, and “were obviously willing to say anything necessary to save their personal backsides.”
Clark Equipment Co. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund (1997) arizctapp “First, Clark’s failure to obtain the Fund’s approval of its defense counsel does not relieve the Fund of its separate obligation, under the Integrity policy, to defend Clark.”
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Ueki (1986) arizctapp “An analysis of the Fund’s obligations relating to appellant’s claim must begin with a consideration of A.R.S. § 20-667. A.R.S. § 20-667(A) provides that the Fund is obligated “to the extent of the covered claims” that exist during specified periods of time with reference to the…”
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Herder (1988) ariz “In two critical areas, A.R.S. § 20-667 limits the Fund’s obligations without regard to what the insolvent insurer’s obligations may have been.”
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund (1999) arizctapp “2d 1147, 1148 (1997), quoting A.R.S. §§ 20-667 and 20-661(3). “A ‘covered claim’ is an unpaid claim arising ‘out of and ‘within the coverage’ of a policy written by an insolvent insurer to which the statutes apply.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-667(C) — 12 cases
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Herder (1988) ariz “In two critical areas, A.R.S. § 20-667 limits the Fund’s obligations without regard to what the insolvent insurer’s obligations may have been.”
Betancourt v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Fund (1991) arizctapp “The court explained: In two critical areas, A.R.S. § 20-667 limits the Fund’s obligations without regard to what the insolvent insurer’s obligations may have been.”
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund (1999) arizctapp “2d 1147, 1148 (1997), quoting A.R.S. §§ 20-667 and 20-661(3). “A ‘covered claim’ is an unpaid claim arising ‘out of and ‘within the coverage’ of a policy written by an insolvent insurer to which the statutes apply.”
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Helme (1987) ariz “A.R.S. § 20-667(A). 8 Helme and NSPC breached this duty to cooperate, according to the Fund, and “were obviously willing to say anything necessary to save their personal backsides.”
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Ueki (1986) arizctapp “An analysis of the Fund’s obligations relating to appellant’s claim must begin with a consideration of A.R.S. § 20-667. A.R.S. § 20-667(A) provides that the Fund is obligated “to the extent of the covered claims” that exist during specified periods of time with reference to the…”
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.