Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 60B.58 (2026)

Claims Of Residents Against Insurers Domiciled In Reciprocal States

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Filing claims.

In a liquidation proceeding in a reciprocal state against an insurer domiciled in that state, claimants against the insurer who reside within this state may file claims either with the ancillary receiver, if any, in this state, or with the domiciliary liquidator. Claims must be filed on or before the last dates fixed for the filing of claims in the domiciliary liquidation proceeding.

Subd. 2.Proving claims.

Claims belonging to claimants residing in this state may be proved either in the domiciliary state under the law of that state or in ancillary proceedings, if any, in this state. If a claimant who elects to prove a claim in this state shall file the claim with the court in the manner provided in sections 60B.37 and 60B.38. The ancillary receiver shall make recommendation to the court as under section 60B.45. The ancillary receiver also shall arrange a date for hearing if necessary under section 60B.41 and shall give notice to the liquidator in the domiciliary state, either by certified mail or by personal service at least 40 days prior to the date set for hearing. If a domiciliary liquidator, within 30 days after the giving of such notice, gives notice in writing to the ancillary receiver and to the claimant, either by certified mail or by personal service, of intention to contest the claim, the domiciliary liquidator shall be entitled to appear or to be represented in any proceeding in this state involving the adjudication of the claim. The final allowance of the claim by the courts of this state shall be accepted as conclusive as to amount and as to priority against special deposits or other security located in this state.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2010–2010 · leading case: Frontier Ins. Co. v. Frontline Processing Corp., 788 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
Frontier Ins. Co. v. Frontline Processing Corp., 788 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 60B.58, subd. 1 (2008). But because Frontline was seeking fees and costs as a conduct-based sanction, and not *927 as an independent claim or action, this statutory provision does not preclude Frontline from seeking such fees and costs.”
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.