Minn. Stat. § 60A.235

BCBSM, INC. v. Commissioner of Revenue · 2003 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

BCBSM, Inc. v. Minnesota Comprehensive Health Ass'n · 2006 6 citations

We agree with the district court that the legislature’s decision not to specifically exclude stop-loss insurance from the [definition of accident-and-health insurance in Minn. Stat. § 62E.02, subd. 11, is compelling support for the assertion that it is accident-and-health-insurance subject to inclusion in the calculation of the assessment. The Indiana Court'of Appeals considered a similar cirefestance in addressing the issue of whether a stop-loss carrier was a member of the state’s comprehensive-health-insurapce association and subject to mandatory. .assessments. Avemco Ins. Co. v. State ex rel. McCarty, 812 N.E.2d 108,121 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (upholding preliminary injuiiption ordering stop-loss insurer to comply with, orders of the Commissioner of Insurance). There, the court found it significant that while the issuers of certain categories of insurance were excluded from membership in the association, stop-loss carriers were not. Id. at 123. As evidenced by the enactment of Minn. Stat. §§ 60A.235-.236 (2004), which describes standards for determining whether an insurance policy is accident- and-sickness insurance or stop-loss insurance for the. purpose of regulating the business of insurance, the legislature was aware of the existence of such insurance and could have specifically excluded it from assessment. Applying the same analysis used in Avemco, we likewise find that the Minnesota legislature’s failure to exclude stop-loss insurance from the definition is a strong indication that it intended that stop-loss insurance is accident-and-health insurance.

BCBSM next cites Minn. Stat. § 60A.235, subd. 1, which specifically addresses whether a policy is considered to be a health-plan contract 1 or a stop-loss contract, for the proposition that because the legislature expressly distinguished between stop-loss policies and aceident-and-sickness policies, 2 MCHA’s position that stop-loss insurance and accident-and-health insurance are indistinguishable must fail.

BCBSM next cites Minn. Stat. § 60A.235, subd. 1, which specifically addresses whether a policy is considered to be a health-plan contract 1 or a stop-loss contract, for the proposition that because the legislature expressly distinguished between stop-loss policies and aceident-and-sickness policies, 2 MCHA’s position that stop-loss insurance and accident-and-health insurance are indistinguishable must fail.

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.