(a)(1) Any person having a claim against an insurer, shall be required first to exhaust all
coverage provided by any other policy, including the right to a defense under the
other policy, if the claim under the other policy arises from the same facts, injury,
or loss that gave rise to the covered claim against the association. The requirement
to exhaust shall apply without regard to whether the other insurance policy is a policy
written by a member insurer. However, no person shall be required to exhaust any right
under the policy of an insolvent insurer or any right under a life insurance policy.
(2) Any amount payable on a covered claim under this chapter shall be reduced by the full
applicable limits stated in the other insurance policy, or by the amount of the recovery
under the other insurance policy as provided herein. The association shall receive
a full credit for the stated limits, unless the claimant demonstrates that the claimant
used reasonable efforts to exhaust all coverage and limits applicable under the other
insurance policy. If the claimant demonstrates that the claimant used reasonable efforts
to exhaust all coverage and limits applicable under the other insurance policy, or
if there are no applicable stated limits under the policy, the association shall receive
a full credit for the total recovery.
(i) The credit shall be deducted from the lesser of:
(A) The association’s covered claim limit;
(B) The amount of the judgment or settlement of the claim; or
(C) The policy limits of the policy of the insolvent insurer.
(ii) In no case, however, shall the obligation of the association exceed the covered claim
limit embodied in § 27-34-8.
(3) Except to the extent that the claimant has a contractual right to claim defense under
an insurance policy issued by another insurer, nothing in this section shall relieve
the association of the duty to defend under the policy issued by the insolvent insurer.
This duty shall, however, be limited by any other limitation on the duty to defend
embodied in this chapter.
(4) A claim under a policy providing liability coverage to a person who may be jointly
and severally liable as a joint tortfeasor with the person covered under the policy
of the insolvent insurer that gives rise to the covered claim shall be considered
to be a claim arising from the same facts, injury, or loss that gave rise to the covered
claim against the association.
(5) For purposes of this section, a claim under an insurance policy other than a life
insurance policy shall include, but is not limited to:
(i) A claim against a health maintenance organization, a hospital plan corporation, a
nonprofit hospital, medical, or dental service corporation, or disability insurance
policy; and
(ii) Any amount payable by or on behalf of a self-insurer.
(6) The person insured by the insolvent insurer’s policy may not be pursued by a third-party
claimant for any amount paid to the third party by which the association’s obligation
is reduced by the application of this section.
(b) 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 or its
equivalent 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 the person shall seek
recovery first from the association of the location of the property. If it is a workers’
compensation claim, the person shall seek recovery first from the association of the
residence of the claimant. Any recovery under this chapter shall be reduced by the
amount of recovery from another insurance guaranty association or its equivalent.
Notes of Decisions
Med. Malpractice Jt. Underwriting Ass'n v. Rhode Island Insurers' Insolvency Fund, 703 A.2d 1097 (R.I. 1997).
· cites it 9× “of the General Laws of Rhode Island (1956), as amended, to defend Greenburg in the Beaudette case in the same manner as a solvent insurer up to the applicable contractual or statutory limit of liability, whichever is less and subject only to first party type offsets set forth in…”
Rhode Island Insurers' Insolvency Fund v. Benoit, 723 A.2d 303 (R.I. 1999).
· cites it 9× “On December 17,1996, the Superior Court heard argument on the motions and subsequently entered an order and judgment granting a summary judgment in favor of the fund, finding that the Peltiers were precluded by G.L. 1956 § 27-34-12(a) from recovering any amount from the fund.”
DiTata v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 542 A.2d 245 (R.I. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Section 27-34-12, however, curtails that responsibility when the claimant has an insolvency provision in his or her own policy.”
Kachanis v. United States, 844 F. Supp. 877 (D.R.I. 1994).
· cites it 2× “at § 27-34-12. The Fund then reduces the amount payable on a covered claim by the amount received from other sources.”
Martin v. Lincoln Bar, Inc., 622 A.2d 464 (R.I. 1993).
“General Laws 1956 (1989 Reenactment) § 27-34-12 required plaintiff to proceed against his own insurance carrier prior to seeking compensation from the Rhode Island Insurers Insolvency Fund.”
Ob/Gyn Assocs. v. New Hampshire Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 914 A.2d 1218 (N.H. 2006).
“While the Rhode Island guaranty act’s nonduplication of recovery *561 provision is substantially similar to our statute, compare R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-34-12(a) with RSA 404-B:12,1, the facts of the Rhode Island case and our case are materially dissimilar.”
United States v. Rhode Island Insurers' Insolvency Fund, 892 F. Supp. 370 (D.R.I. 1995).
· cites it 4× “The Fund Act mandates the exact opposite, requiring a claimant under a liability insurance policy issued by an insolvent insurer to first exhaust any right of recovery under Medicare, R.I.Gen.Laws § 27-34-12, and allowing the Fund to subtract from any claim they pay any amount…”
Costello v. Am. Universal Ins. Co., 633 A.2d 260 (R.I. 1993).
“1956 (1989 Reenactment) § 27-34-12, has a plain and unambiguous meaning and this court is bound to construe the statute in accordance with that plain meaning.”
Lombardi v. Rhode Island Insurers' Insolvency Fund, 751 A.2d 1275 (R.I. 2000).
· cites it 4× “1993), that pursuant to § 27-34-12, a *1277 plaintiff is required to proceed against his or her own insurance carrier prior to seeking compensation from the Fund.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-34-12(a): 3 cases
Rhode Island Insurers' Insolvency Fund v. Benoit, 723 A.2d 303 (R.I. 1999).
“On December 17,1996, the Superior Court heard argument on the motions and subsequently entered an order and judgment granting a summary judgment in favor of the fund, finding that the Peltiers were precluded by G.L. 1956 § 27-34-12(a) from recovering any amount from the fund.”
Ob/Gyn Assocs. v. New Hampshire Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 914 A.2d 1218 (N.H. 2006).
“While the Rhode Island guaranty act’s nonduplication of recovery *561 provision is substantially similar to our statute, compare R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-34-12(a) with RSA 404-B:12,1, the facts of the Rhode Island case and our case are materially dissimilar.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-34-12(b): 1 case
United States v. Rhode Island Insurers' Insolvency Fund, 892 F. Supp. 370 (D.R.I. 1995).
“The Fund Act mandates the exact opposite, requiring a claimant under a liability insurance policy issued by an insolvent insurer to first exhaust any right of recovery under Medicare, R.I.Gen.Laws § 27-34-12, and allowing the Fund to subtract from any claim they pay any amount…”
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.