§431:15-319 Setoffs and counterclaims.
(a) Mutual debts or mutual credits between the insurer and another person in
connection with any action or proceeding under this article shall be set off
and the balance only shall be allowed or paid, except as provided in subsection
(b) and section 431:15-323.
(b) No setoff or counterclaim shall be allowed
in favor of any person where:
(1) The obligation of the insurer to the person would
not at the date of the filing of a petition for liquidation entitle the person
to share as a claimant in the assets of the insurer;
(2) The obligation of the insurer to the person was
purchased by or transferred to the person with a view to its being used as a
setoff;
(3) The obligation of the person is to pay an
assessment levied against the members or subscribers of the insurer, or is to
pay a balance upon a subscription to the capital stock of the insurer, or is in
any other way in the nature of a capital contribution; or
(4) The obligation of the person is to pay premiums
whether earned or unearned, to the insurer. [L 1987, c 347, pt of §2]
Notes of Decisions
Metcalf v. Voluntary Employees'ben. Ass'n, 52 P.3d 823 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 8× “The court deferred to the determination from the Special Proceeding that Article 15 applied to PGMA based upon the principle of judicial comity and ruled that HRS § 431:15-319(b) (1993) [7] barred VEBAH's counterclaims.”
Kemper Reinsurance Co. v. Corcoran, 590 N.E.2d 1186 (N.Y. 1992).
“…ch 191, at 9). Some jurisdictions expressly prohibit setting off premiums (see, e.g., Conn Gen Stat Annot § 38a-932; Haw Rev Stat §431:15-319 [b] [4]; Idaho Code § 41-3330 [2] [d]; Ind Code § 27-9-3-28 [b] [4]; Iowa Code Annot § 507C.30 [2] [d]; Ky Rev Stat Annot § 304.33-330…”
Albany Ins. Co. v. Stephens, 926 S.W.2d 460 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995).
“§ 38a-932; Haw. Rev.Stat. § 431:15-319[b][4]; Idaho Code § 41 — 3330[2][d]; Ind.”
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 431:15-319(b): 2 cases
Metcalf v. Voluntary Employees'ben. Ass'n, 52 P.3d 823 (Haw. 2002).
“The court deferred to the determination from the Special Proceeding that Article 15 applied to PGMA based upon the principle of judicial comity and ruled that HRS § 431:15-319(b) (1993) [7] barred VEBAH's counterclaims.”
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.