 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. California Insurance Guarantee Association12/7/2000
step transaction doctrine, even if it may be applied in this non-tax context, does not assist appellants. Baxter Travenol, the predecessor of BII, could have acquired the assets and operated the business of AHSC without dissolving AHSC or distributing its assets to a newly formed subsidiary corporation. Baxter Travenol was not legally obligated to take these steps, nor were they required for it to obtain the economic benefit of owning AHSC. As a result, the step transaction doctrine does not dictate that these events as a single transaction.
Assignee
Section 1063.1, subdivision (c)(9)(ii) also excludes from the definition of covered claims, "any claim asserted by an assignee[.]" Appellants contend their claim is not barred by this exclusion because the assignment through which BHC acquired the policies did not transfer a "matured claim" for CIGA benefits and served only to distribute assets within a single corporate family. We are not persuaded. The Guarantee Act excludes from coverage claims asserted by an assignee. That term is not defined or qualified by the Act. It must be read in the context of the entire statute and given the meaning it bears in ordinary usage. (DuBois v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 382, 387-388; Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735.)
BHC acquired its interest in AHSC's insurance policies because BII executed a document entitled "Assignment and Assumption." This document assigned to BHC the right to claim benefits under the policies. BHC is, therefore, an assignee of rights under the insurance policies. Its claim for CIGA benefits is, therefore, excluded by the plain meaning of the statute. Any other reading of the statute would do violence to the word selected by the Legislature.
Appellants contend that, despite its unqualified language, the statutory exclusion applies only to the assignment of "mature claims" for CIGA benefits, and not to the assignment of the right to make a claim against an insurance policy. This limitation does not appear in the statute and we may not rewrite the statute to include it. "Our office, of course, 'is simply to ascertain and declare' what is in the relevant statutes, 'not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted.' (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 1858.) We are not authorized to insert qualifying provisions not included, and may not rewrite the statute to conform to an assumed intention which does not appear from its language. (Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 370, 381 [267 Cal.Rptr. 569, 787 P.2d 976].)" (Stop Youth Addiction v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 553, 573.)
The Guarantee Act expressly excludes from the definition of covered claims any claim asserted by an assignee. BHC obtained its interest in the AHSC insurance policies by assignment from BII. The trial court correctly ruled that BHC is not entitled to CIGA benefits because it is an assignee.
Conclusion
The judgment is affirmed. Costs to respondent.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
PERREN, J.
John P. Shook, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|