Minn. Stat. § 62E.02

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue · 1993 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

BCBSM, Inc. v. Minnesota Comprehensive Health Ass'n · 2006 2 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.

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.

HealthPartners, Inc. v. Bernstein · 2003 4 citations

Relator HealthPartners, Inc. challenges the decision of the Commissioner of the *358 Minnesota Department of Commerce denying its appeal of its MCHA assessments for the years 1997, 1998, and 1999. HealthPartners argues that the payments it received pursuant to Medicare cost contracts were not payments received “for coverage” under Minn. Stat. § 62E.02, subd. 23 (2002). As a result, HealthPart-ners contends, the payments are not in-cludable in its “total accident and health insurance premium[s]” under Minn. Stat. § 62E.11, subd. 5 (2002), for purposes of determining its annual MCHA assessment. Because we conclude that the payments received by HealthPartners under Medicare cost contracts are payments received “for coverage” that are includable in HealthPartners’ “total accident and health insurance premiums[s]” for purposes of determining HealthPartners’ MCHA assessments, we affirm.

Relator HealthPartners, Inc. challenges the decision of the Commissioner of the *358 Minnesota Department of Commerce denying its appeal of its MCHA assessments for the years 1997, 1998, and 1999. HealthPartners argues that the payments it received pursuant to Medicare cost contracts were not payments received “for coverage” under Minn. Stat. § 62E.02, subd. 23 (2002). As a result, HealthPart-ners contends, the payments are not in-cludable in its “total accident and health insurance premium[s]” under Minn. Stat. § 62E.11, subd. 5 (2002), for purposes of determining its annual MCHA assessment. Because we conclude that the payments received by HealthPartners under Medicare cost contracts are payments received “for coverage” that are includable in HealthPartners’ “total accident and health insurance premiums[s]” for purposes of determining HealthPartners’ MCHA assessments, we affirm.

Relator HealthPartners, Inc. challenges the decision of the Commissioner of the *358 Minnesota Department of Commerce denying its appeal of its MCHA assessments for the years 1997, 1998, and 1999. HealthPartners argues that the payments it received pursuant to Medicare cost contracts were not payments received “for coverage” under Minn. Stat. § 62E.02, subd. 23 (2002). As a result, HealthPart-ners contends, the payments are not in-cludable in its “total accident and health insurance premium[s]” under Minn. Stat. § 62E.11, subd. 5 (2002), for purposes of determining its annual MCHA assessment. Because we conclude that the payments received by HealthPartners under Medicare cost contracts are payments received “for coverage” that are includable in HealthPartners’ “total accident and health insurance premiums[s]” for purposes of determining HealthPartners’ MCHA assessments, we affirm.

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

St. Paul Electrical Workers Welfare Fund v. Markman · 1980 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Insurers' Action Council, Inc. v. Markman · 1980 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.