![maple 2019 what is new maple 2019 what is new](http://cdn.chatsports.com/thumbnails/1367-50273-original.jpeg)
Nearly identical to the plaintiff's contentions in this case, the medical groups had argued that the cash consideration belonged to them because they had paid the premiums on behalf of the policyholders and/or had acted as the policy administrators.
![maple 2019 what is new maple 2019 what is new](https://www.maplesoft.com/products/maple/new_features/Maple2019/Maple2019Box.jpg)
The DFS Decision also acknowledged testimony and written comments from medical groups. Insurance Law §7307(e)(3) expressly defines those persons who are entitled to receive the proceeds of the Demutualization as each person who had a policy in effect during the three-year period preceding the MLMIC Board's adoption of the resolution (the 'Eligible Policyholders') and explicitly provides that each Eligible Policyholder's equitable share of the purchase price shall be determined based on the amount of the net premiums paid on eligible policies" (DFS Decision, p.4). In her Septemdecision (DFS Decision), the Superintendent wrote: "MLMIC's eligible policyholders will receive cash consideration. The New York Superintendent of Financial Services held a public hearing and approved the Plan. Pursuant to §8.2(a) of the Plan of Conversion (the Plan), "Each Eligible Policyholder (or it's designee) shall receive a cash payment in an amount equal to the applicable conversion." Pursuant to §2.1 of the Plan, an "eligible policyholder" was the person designated as the insured, while a "designee" meant employers or policy administrators, "designated by Eligible Policyholders to receive the portion of the Cash Consideration allocated to such Eligible Policyholders." The Plan did not provide for the policy administrator to receive cash consideration absent such a designation from the policyholder/member. The MLMIC Board later adopted a plan of conversion, whereby cash consideration would be paid to policyholders/members in exchange for the extinguishment of the policyholder membership interests. The MLMIC Board of Directors approved a proposed transaction by which MLMIC would demutualize, convert to a stock insurance company, and be acquired by the National Indemnity Company (NICO) for $2.502 billion. Neither the employment agreement nor the MLMIC Policy Administrator - Designation & /or Change agreement contained language indicating that the defendants waived, transferred or assigned their ownership interest in the policy to someone else.
![maple 2019 what is new maple 2019 what is new](https://www.maplesoft.com/products/maple/images18/whatismaple.jpg)
According its terms, "The Policy Administrator is the agent of all Insureds herein for the paying of premium, requesting changes in the policy, including cancellation thereof and for receiving dividends and any return premiums when due." MLMIC and the defendants entered into a "MLMIC Policy Administrator - Designation & /or Change" agreement, by which the defendants designated the plaintiff as their agent and policy administrator. They consequently became policyholders and members of MLMIC. The defendants were named as the insured under their individual MLMIC policies. That insurance was secured through the Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC).
Maple 2019 what is new professional#
Article 3 (c)(ii) of their employment agreements provided that the plaintiff would pay professional liability insurance premiums as an "employment benefit for and on behalf of" the employee. Defendant Douglas Brundin was employed by the plaintiff from Januto January 6, 2016. Defendant Deixry Nasrin was employed by the plaintiff from Mato April 28, 2017. The defendants are Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists. These facilities require the plaintiff's physicians and Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists to maintain professional liability insurance. It provides anesthesia services to hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers in Western New York. Before the court is the defendants' pre-Answer motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiff is suing the defendants for unjust enrichment and conversion. Ferdman, of CounselĪmber Storr and Andrea Schillaci, of Counsel Maple-Gate Anesthhsiologists, P.C., Plaintiffĭeixry Nasrin and DOUGLAS BRUNDIN, Defendants This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.