clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e
  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search search for:
clear space
white space
Session Laws, 1996
Volume 794, Page 255   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Governor

Ch. 11

(7)      AFTER REASONABLE NOTICE, HAS FAILED PROMPTLY AND
EFFECTIVELY TO TERMINATE THE EMPLOYMENT, STATUS, AND INFLUENCE OVER
THE MANAGEMENT OF THE INSURER OF A PERSON THAT HAS EXECUTIVE
AUTHORITY IN FACT OVER THE INSURER AND HAS REFUSED TO BE EXAMINED
UNDER OATH ABOUT THE AFFAIRS OF THE INSURER IN THE STATE OR ELSEWHERE;

(8)      HAS BEEN OR IS THE SUBJECT OF AN APPLICATION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER, TRUSTEE, CUSTODIAN, SEQUESTRATOR, OR SIMILAR
FIDUCIARY OF THE INSURER OR ITS PROPERTY IN AN ACTION NOT FILED UNDER
THIS ARTICLE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE APPOINTMENT:

(I)       HAS BEEN MADE;

(II)     MIGHT DENY THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF JURISDICTION;
OR

(III)    MIGHT PREJUDICE AN ORDERLY DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING
UNDER THIS SUBTITLE;

(9)      HAS CONSENTED TO THE ORDER FOR CONSERVATION OR
REHABILITATION THROUGH A MAJORITY OF ITS DIRECTORS, STOCKHOLDERS,.
MEMBERS, OR SUBSCRIBERS;

(10)    HAS FAILED TO PAY A FINAL JUDGMENT RENDERED AGAINST IT IN
THE STATE ON AN INSURANCE CONTRACT ISSUED OR ASSUMED BY THE INSURER,
WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER THE LATEST OF:

(I)       THE DAY ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT BECAME FINAL;

(II)     THE DAY ON WHICH THE TIME FOR TAKING AN APPEAL
EXPIRED; AND

(III) THE DAY ON WHICH AN APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BEFORE
FINAL TERMINATION;

(11)    AFTER EXAMINATION BY THE COMMISSIONER, IS FOUND TO BE IN A
CONDITION IN WHICH FURTHER TRANSACTION OF ITS BUSINESS WILL BE
HAZARDOUS TO ITS POLICYHOLDERS, BONDHOLDERS, CREDITORS, OR THE PUBLIC;

(12)    HAS FAILED TO REMOVE A PERSON THAT HAS EXECUTIVE
AUTHORITY IN FACT OVER THE INSURER AFTER THE COMMISSIONER HAS FOUND
THAT PERSON TO BE DISHONEST OR UNTRUSTWORTHY IN A MANNER THAT MIGHT
AFFECT THE BUSINESS OF THE INSURER;

(13)    HAS REASONABLE CAUSE TO KNOW, OR SHOULD KNOW, THAT
THERE HAS BEEN:

(I)       EMBEZZLEMENT FROM THE INSURER;

(II)     WRONGFUL SEQUESTRATION OR DIVERSION OF ASSETS OF
THE INSURER;

(III)    FORGERY OR FRAUD THAT AFFECTS THE INSURER; OR

- 255 -

 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Session Laws, 1996
Volume 794, Page 255   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 17, 2024
Maryland State Archives