Frontier Insurance v. Superintendent of Insurance
Opinion of the Court
By consenting to an evidentiary hearing and discovery, the Superintendent waived his argument that the IAS court should not have permitted Commercial Risk to bring a separate action. In any event, under the facts of this case, the IAS court properly exercised its discretion in modifying its October 15, 2001 order to permit Commercial Risk to sue the Superintendent (see Matter of Bean v Stoddard, 238 NY 618 [1924]).
Of the $1,744,209.26 that Frontier withdrew from the trust account established by Commercial Risk, all but $68,000 was admittedly taken wrongfully, i.e., converted (see Payne v White, 101 AD2d 975, 976 [1984]) and the wrongfully taken funds, amounting to $1,676,209.26, never became the property of Frontier (see Pearlman v Reliance Ins. Co., 371 US 132, 135-136 [1962]; In re Mishkin, 138 BR 410, 412-413 [1992]; In re Iorizzo, 114 BR 19, 24 [1990]), but rather became subject to a constructive trust in Commercial Risk’s favor. Commercial Risk’s entitlement to the immediate return of the converted funds from the Superintendent as Frontier’s rehabilitator, however, depends upon the extent to which the converted sums remain in the Superintendent’s possession (see Iorizzo, supra; Matter of Cavin v Gleason, 105 NY 256 [1887]). Of the $1,744,209.26 that Frontier deposited into its checking account on August 17, 2001, $542,674.39 was paid to third parties, while $1,201,534.87 was
As to the remaining $542,674.39, which was dissipated, Commercial Risk’s entitlement is merely that of a common creditor (see Matter of Reece, 122 Misc 2d 517, 518 [1983]). Accordingly, there exists no basis to require the Superintendent to segregate funds in that amount.
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.