Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 24-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 24-A, § 4443 (2026)

Nonduplication of recovery

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Insurance policy.  Any person having a claim against an insurer under any provision in an insurance policy, other than that of an insolvent insurer, which is also a covered claim, shall be required to exhaust first the person's right under the policy. Any amount otherwise payable on a covered claim under this subchapter shall be reduced by the amount of any recovery under the insurance policy.  
[PL 1987, c. 707, §10 (NEW).]
2.  Governmental insurance.  Any person having a claim or legal right of recovery under any governmental insurance, which is also a covered claim, shall be required to exhaust first that person's right under that insurance. Any amount payable on a covered claim under this subchapter shall be reduced by the amount of any recovery under that insurance.  
[PL 1987, c. 707, §10 (NEW).]
3.  Insurance guaranty association.  Any person having a claim which may be recovered from more than one insurance guaranty association or its equivalent shall seek recovery first from the association of the place of residence of the insured, except that, if it is a first party claim for damage to property with a permanent location, that person shall seek recovery first from the association of the location of the property, and, if it is a workers' compensation claim, that person shall seek recovery first from the association of the residence of the claimant. Any recovery under this subchapter shall be reduced by the amount of recovery from any other insurance guaranty association or its equivalent.  
[PL 1987, c. 707, §10 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1969, c. 561 (NEW). PL 1987, c. 707, §10 (RPR).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1990–2007 · leading case: Pinkham v. Morrill, 622 A.2d 90 (Me. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pinkham v. Morrill, 622 A.2d 90 (Me. 1993). · cites it 5× “§ 4435(4) 4 of the Act prohibits subrogated recoveries against the MIGA, and that 24-A M.R.S.A. § 4443 5 requires plaintiff to exhaust her uninsured motorist claim before pursuing a claim under the Act.”
Jackson Brook Inst., Inc. v. Maine Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 2004 ME 140 (Me. 2004). · cites it 4× “against Brooks as well as claims against other officers and directors of JBI, for the total amount of $2 million from ERI (whose policy limit was $3 million) and Royal (whose policy limit was $2 million) preclude claims against the Maine Insurance Guaranty Association (MIGA)…”
Maine Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Folsom, 2001 ME 63 (Me. 2001). · cites it 3× “Folsom’s workers’ compensation benefits owed by an insolvent insurer, American Mutual Insurance Company, pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 4443 (2000). We affirm the judgment.”
Ventulett v. Maine Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 583 A.2d 1022 (Me. 1990). · cites it 2× “On motions for summary judgment filed by both parties, the court construed 24-A M.R.S.A. § 4443, the Guaranty Act’s “nonduplication of recovery” provision, to require MIGA to offset against what it owes a claimant any amount that the claimant has recovered under a workers’…”
Beane v. Maine Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 916 A.2d 204 (Me. 2007). · cites it 9× “See 24-A M.R.S. § 4443(1) (2006). The Beanes contend that the trial court erred, inter alia, in holding that they failed to exhaust the limits of a solvent insurance policy under *206 the Maine Insurance Guaranty Association Act.”
Juliano v. Ameri-cana Transp., 2007 ME 9 (Me. 2007). “In addition, the “nonduplication of recovery” provision of the Act requires a person who has “a claim against an insurer under any provision in an insurance policy, other than that of an insolvent insurer, which is also a covered claim,” to first exhaust that person’s right…”
Connecticut Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. State, 896 A.2d 747 (Conn. 2006). “” Similarly, Ventulett , in which the Maine Supreme Judicial Court construed the provisions of the Maine Insurance Guaranty Association Act on exhaustion of rights under solvent insurance policies and nonduplication of recoveiy; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 24-A, § 4443 (1); also is…”
Beane v. Maine Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 2007 ME 40 (Me. 2007). · cites it 9× “See 24-A M.R.S. § 4443(1) (2006). The Beanes contend that the trial court erred, inter alia, in holding that they failed to exhaust the limits of a solvent insurance policy under *206 the Maine Insurance Guaranty Association Act.”
Purcell v. Mehlhorn (Me. Super. Ct 2007). · cites it 6× “24-A M.R.S.A. § 4443. The only limitation relevant to this case is the first, which requires Purcell to seek and exhaust any remedies he may have on his claim for damages from any solvent insurer before seeking recovery from MICA.”
Beane v. Maine Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 880 A.2d 284 (Me. 2005). “Exhausting available insurance coverage is a necessary prerequisite to triggering a payment obligation for MIGA pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 4443(1) (2000). Section 4443(1) of the MIGA statute states: Any person having a claim against an insurer under any provision in an…”
Beane v. Maine Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 2005 ME 104 (Me. 2005). “Exhausting available insurance coverage is a necessary prerequisite to triggering a payment obligation for MIGA pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 4443(1) (2000). Section 4443(1) of the MIGA statute states: Any person having a claim against an insurer under any provision in an…”
LePage v. Collins (Me. Super. Ct 2007). · cites it 2× “" 24-A M.R.S.A. § 4443. The relevant portion of Section 4433 reads in full as follows: Any person having a claim against an insurer under any provision in an insurance policy, other than that of an insolvent insurer, which is also a covered claim, shall be required to exhaust…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 24-A, § 4443(1) — 10 cases
Pinkham v. Morrill, 622 A.2d 90 (Me. 1993). “§ 4435(4) 4 of the Act prohibits subrogated recoveries against the MIGA, and that 24-A M.R.S.A. § 4443 5 requires plaintiff to exhaust her uninsured motorist claim before pursuing a claim under the Act.”
Jackson Brook Inst., Inc. v. Maine Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 2004 ME 140 (Me. 2004). “against Brooks as well as claims against other officers and directors of JBI, for the total amount of $2 million from ERI (whose policy limit was $3 million) and Royal (whose policy limit was $2 million) preclude claims against the Maine Insurance Guaranty Association (MIGA)…”
Ventulett v. Maine Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 583 A.2d 1022 (Me. 1990). “On motions for summary judgment filed by both parties, the court construed 24-A M.R.S.A. § 4443, the Guaranty Act’s “nonduplication of recovery” provision, to require MIGA to offset against what it owes a claimant any amount that the claimant has recovered under a workers’…”
Maine Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Folsom, 2001 ME 63 (Me. 2001). “Folsom’s workers’ compensation benefits owed by an insolvent insurer, American Mutual Insurance Company, pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 4443 (2000). We affirm the judgment.”
Beane v. Maine Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 916 A.2d 204 (Me. 2007). “See 24-A M.R.S. § 4443(1) (2006). The Beanes contend that the trial court erred, inter alia, in holding that they failed to exhaust the limits of a solvent insurance policy under *206 the Maine Insurance Guaranty Association Act.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 24-A, § 4443(2) — 1 case
Purcell v. Mehlhorn (Me. Super. Ct 2007). “24-A M.R.S.A. § 4443. The only limitation relevant to this case is the first, which requires Purcell to seek and exhaust any remedies he may have on his claim for damages from any solvent insurer before seeking recovery from MICA.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 24-A, § 4443(3) — 3 cases
Beane v. Maine Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 916 A.2d 204 (Me. 2007). “See 24-A M.R.S. § 4443(1) (2006). The Beanes contend that the trial court erred, inter alia, in holding that they failed to exhaust the limits of a solvent insurance policy under *206 the Maine Insurance Guaranty Association Act.”
Beane v. Maine Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 2007 ME 40 (Me. 2007). “See 24-A M.R.S. § 4443(1) (2006). The Beanes contend that the trial court erred, inter alia, in holding that they failed to exhaust the limits of a solvent insurance policy under *206 the Maine Insurance Guaranty Association Act.”
Purcell v. Mehlhorn (Me. Super. Ct 2007). “24-A M.R.S.A. § 4443. The only limitation relevant to this case is the first, which requires Purcell to seek and exhaust any remedies he may have on his claim for damages from any solvent insurer before seeking recovery from MICA.”
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.