Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Sec. 38a-915. (Formerly Sec. 38-433). Rehabilitation orders. Appointment of judge to supervise rehabilitation. Accounting. Appeals. (a) An order to rehabilitate the business of a domestic insurer, or an alien insurer domiciled in this state, shall appoint the commissioner and his successors in office the rehabilitator and shall direct the rehabilitator forthwith to take possession of the assets of the insurer and to administer them under the general supervision of the court. The commissioner shall be entitled to request the administrative judge of the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford to appoint a single judge to supervise the rehabilitation and hear any cases or controversies arising out of or related to the rehabilitation. Rehabilitation proceedings shall be exempt from any dormancy or similar program maintained by the court for the early closure of civil actions. The filing or recording of the order with the clerk of the Superior Court or recorder of deeds of the judicial district in which the principal business of the company is conducted, or the judicial district in which its principal office or place of business is located, shall impart the same notice as a deed, bill of sale or other evidence of title duly filed or recorded with that recorder of deeds would have imparted. The order to rehabilitate the insurer shall by operation of law vest title to all assets of the insurer in the rehabilitator.
(b) Any order issued under this section shall require accounting to the court by the rehabilitator. Accountings shall be at such intervals as the court specified in its order, but no less frequently than semiannually. Each accounting shall include a report concerning the rehabilitator's opinion as to the likelihood that a plan under subsection (e) of section 38a-916, will be prepared by the rehabilitator and the timetable for doing so.
(c) Entry of an order of rehabilitation shall not constitute an anticipatory breach of any contracts of the insurer nor shall it be grounds for retroactive revocation or retroactive cancellation of any contracts of the insurer unless such revocation or cancellation is done by the rehabilitator pursuant to section 38a-916.
(d) In order to facilitate the prompt and final resolution for all affected by a plan of rehabilitation, any appeal from an order of rehabilitation or an order approving a plan of rehabilitation shall be heard on an expedited basis. A stay of an order of rehabilitation or an order approving a plan of rehabilitation shall not be granted unless the appellant demonstrates that extraordinary circumstances warrant delaying the recovery under the plan of rehabilitation of all other persons, including policyholders. If the plan provides an appropriate mechanism for adjustment in the event of any adverse ruling from an appeal, no stay shall be granted.
(P.A. 79-382, S. 13; P.A. 88-230, S. 1, 12; P.A. 90-98, S. 1, 2; P.A. 92-93, S. 11; P.A. 93-142, S. 4, 7, 8; P.A. 95-220, S. 4–6; P.A. 98-214, S. 9.)
Apr 30, 2024
Superior
New Haven County, CT
Mar 04, 2024
Fairfield County
Fairfield County, CT
Nov 21, 2023
Hartford County
Hartford County, CT
Aug 30, 2023
New Haven County
New Haven County, CT
Feb 27, 2024
Hartford County
Hartford County, CT
AAN-CV-15-6018031-S SUPERIOR COURT CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONTA/ COMPANY MILFORD VS. AT MILFORD ELIZABETH LAPUMA, ET. AL. MAY 13, 2015 RE UEST TO REVISE Pursuant to Section 10-35 of the Connecticut Practice Boo…
Mar 16, 2015
DOCKET NO. HHD-CV-18-6095387-S MONTAVIOUS FINLEY ) SUPERIOR COURT ) ) ) V. ) …
May 31, 2018
DOCKET NO.: MMX-CV19-6023735-S : SUPERIOR COURT ANN L. GILLESPIE-WHITE J.D. OF MIDDLESEX V. : AT MIDDLETOWN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO.: OCTOBER 12, 2022 PLAINTIFF’S DISCLOSURE OF EX…
Jan 18, 2019
DOCKET NO.: MMX-CV19-6023735-S : SUPERIOR COURT ANN L. GILLESPIE-WHITE J.D. OF MIDDLESEX V. : AT MIDDLETOWN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO.: DECMEBER 11, 2022 AMENDED PLAINTIFF’S DISCLOSURE OF E…
Jan 18, 2019
NO. HHD-CV19-6108505-S AFFORD-A-BAIL BONDS : SUPERIOR COURT VS. : J. D. OF HARTFORD CHRISTINE H. STEELE : FEBRUARY 11, 2021 DEFENDANT’S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM Th…
Mar 12, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.