Borman's case decided.
In the case of Borman's, Inc. v. Michigan Property & Casually Guaranty Association, No. 89-2056, The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the Michigan law which excludes from coverage certain insureds whose net worth exceeds a statutorily calculated maximum under the Michigan Property & Casualty Guaranty Act does not violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution or the Michigan Constitution. In its February 7 decision, the court overturned the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan which had found that the "net worth exclusion' was not rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose, which violated the equal protection clause of both constitutions. As you might recall, RIMS filed an amicus curiae brief in the case, arguing that the "net worth exclusion" was unconstitutional because it was arbitrary and not rationally related to any legitimate legislative purpose. It excluded certain policyholders from protection of the guaranty fund while at the same time, forcing those policyholders to support the fund through premium assessments.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Borman's Inc. vs Michigan Property & Casualty Guaranty Assoc|
|Date:||Mar 1, 1991|
|Previous Article:||IRS issues captive insurer guidelines.|
|Next Article:||Captive premiums deductible.|