- 79 -
with the necessary forms upon which the shippers could declare
excess value. The package pickup record was used by petitioner
to bill shippers for the EVC's sold. Petitioner received and
deposited EVC income in its corporate accounts. Thus, assuming
that the Shippers Interest Program was insurance, petitioner sold
or solicited the putative insurance in 1984. Petitioner also
received, reviewed, defended, and paid claims. By selling the
Shippers Interest policy, collecting the premiums, and adjusting
claims without the appropriate licenses, petitioner would
seemingly have been in violation of State statutes prohibiting
the sale, collection of premium, and adjustment of claims related
to the NUF insurance policy. It strains credulity to believe
that petitioner attempted to avoid the requirements of State
statutes by restructuring its excess value activity in a manner
that arguably caused petitioner to remain in violation of State
statutes.38 Had such a restructuring occurred to avoid violating
State law, we believe that a large successful corporation such as
37(...continued)
(C) collecting any premium, membership fee,
assessment or other consideration for any policy or
contract of insurance;
38Indeed, on the question of whether petitioner's EVC
activity constitutes "insurance", petitioner fails to make any
meaningful distinction between the promise to "insure" the first
$100 of value in return for a shipping fee, which petitioner
continued after Jan. 1, 1984, and the excess value activity.
Page: Previous 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011