Erie Insurance Subscriber Agreement

The complaint alleges that members of the Exchange who pay their insurance premiums in installments must also pay a service fee, and that members are also subject to late payments and retry policy fees. The complaint also alleges that beginning in 1997, Indemnity began withholding for itself the service fees that some members had paid to Exchange, whose funds belonged to Exchange, and that beginning in 2008, compensation diverted late payment fees and the reinstatement of the policy totaling more than $300 million. As for the details of the complaint, the first page states that it is filed on behalf of “All members of the Erie Insurance Exchange,” and under the description of the parties, each identified subscriber “files this complaint on behalf of all members of the Exchange.” The first charge of breach of contract is necessarily brought on behalf of all subscribers, since the subscriber`s agreements exist between each individual subscriber and compensation. Exchange would not be entitled to assert a claim for breach of contract in connection with Subscriber`s agreements because Exchange is not a party to Subscriber`s agreements. As regards the breach of fiduciary duty and the applicants` allegations of unjust enrichment, they are similar in nature to the rights seized by the Supreme Court. Again, the transactions under the IHCA may have been quite fair and proportionate. However, the applicants allege that Indemnity`s engagement as Trustee of Exchange and the terms of the Subscriber Agreement prohibited the Subscriber from entering into these (and possibly other) transactions that could have been “fair and reasonable” for their own compensation benefit. As noted by the Drain Supreme Court, the IHCA gives the ministry the authority to review and approve or reject certain transactions within an insurance system, but it “does not explicitly provide a mechanism for the ministry to deal with alleged transaction incidents of this kind.” 712 A.2d to 276. The McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 20, states that U.S. insurance companies can only be regulated by states.

There are considerable differences in how state law refers to mutual exchange. Some states have specific laws for mutual exchanges, while others subject the regulation of mutual exchanges to those that apply to “corporate insurers.” The petitioners` support on six points essentially favours three legal theories. Either way, we don`t need to clarify the constitutional question of whether Rule 2152 or Rule 2177 provides the right basis for filing a lawsuit through an insurance exchange, an issue that “we only see dark through the glass of Erie.” Purdue Pharma P.P.c. Kentucky, 704 F.3d 208, 220 (2d Cir.2013). The plaintiffs are the masters of their complaints and “are free to choose the legal provisions under which they assert their claims”. Id. at 216 n. 7; see also Standard Fire Ins. Co. v.

Knowles, ––– U.S. ––––,, ––––,, 133 pp.ct. 1345, 1350, 185 L.Ed.2d 439 (2013). If the case is not procedurally sound under Pennsylvania rules, the Commonwealth courts are in the best position to resolve the issue. We will not rewrite the complaint in order to create a court under the pretext of correcting an error in state law. The second charge of breach of fiduciary duty must also be brought on behalf of the policyholders, as the complaint alleges that the compensation is a “trustee of the Exchange and its subscribers” and that it “breached these obligations”. Even if the compensation breached an obligation owed to a stock exchange, the complaint also alleges that the compensation breached the obligations it owed to all subscribers that only it can justify. Both charges end with the search for an exemption for individuals by stating that “the plaintiffs are requesting a sum on behalf of all exchange members.” In contrast, the third count states that the lawsuit is being filed “on behalf of Exchange” and not on behalf of “all members of Exchange,” which further suggests that the first two charges are aimed at obtaining an individual exemption for all subscribers.

The wording of the complaint, as well as the nature of the claims, indicate that it was filed on behalf of all the cartoonists and seeks individual redress for all the draftsmen. The original complaint, filed with the Court of Common Pleas for Fayette County, Pennsylvania, on August 1, 2012 (the “Complaint”), alleges that Exchange is owned by its subscribers and has no independent officials or governing bodies. It is also alleged that Indemnity is a public company organized under the laws of Pennsylvania and serves as an attorney for Exchange. According to the complaint, in order to obtain insurance, each member of the Exchange must sign an identical agreement designating compensation as a lawyer on behalf of the Exchange (the “Subscription Agreement”). The underwriting agreement gives compensation broad powers to manage and manage “the business and affairs of” Exchange, including the ability to issue policies for Exchange, collect premiums, and invest Exchange funds. Common Annex (“J.A.”) 35. In exchange for these services, the Remuneration is entitled to retain up to 25% of all Rewards reserved or accepted by Exchange. The balance of premiums must be used for insurance damages and other operating costs of Exchange and may be distributed as a dividend to its members at the discretion of compensation. Point 3 of the agreement is particularly important and is also a major reason why Erie`s mutual approach makes sense and tends to keep insurance rates low. It states that Erie can only take up to 25 cents of every dollar raised by the scholarship for overhead, administration, commissions, and other expenses.

This means that the remaining 75 cents MUST be used to pay claims. The property and casualty insurance and life insurance companies belong to the stock exchange and Indemnity acts as a management company. Indemnity, the Exchange and its subsidiaries and affiliates operate jointly under the name “Erie Insurance Group” (ERIE®). The parties do not deny that Exchange is a mutual insurance exchange organized under the laws of Pennsylvania. Since at least 1921, Pennsylvania has authorized the aggregation of resources to cover most losses that might otherwise be insured under Pennsylvania laws. See 40 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 961 (2012).

Thus, members of the exchange acquire insurance policies and receive compensation for losses from the exchange`s money pool. The pool consists of fees, including insurance premiums and other fees paid by the members of the exchange. It is important that the legal relationship of these persons exists independently of this prosecution. Indemnity filed a notice of reference, arguing that the matter constituted a “class action within the meaning of the Equity in Class Actions Act.” J.A. 21. After the case was referred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the plaintiffs were remanded in custody, arguing that the case did not constitute a “class action,” as that term is used in CAFA, and that, in the alternative, CAFA`s diversity requirements for citizenship were not met. Indemnity responded that, among other things, the lawsuit was wrongly filed under Rule 2152 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. As mentioned earlier, Rule 2152 specifies how to sue on behalf of “associations” under Pennsylvania law. However, Pennsylvania rules define “associations” to exclude entities that are “companies or similar entities,” such as “insurance associations or exchanges.” Dad. R.

Civ. p. 2176; see also Pa. R. Civ. p. 2151. Pennsylvania law provides that actions on behalf of such a “corporation or similar entity” will instead be “sued in the name of its company.” Dad. R.

. . .

Category: Uncategorized