at 806-19. Any blanket attempt to apply General Motors Corp. to all non-cash settlements would therefore be in error, and the fact that the settlement does not put cash directly in class members’ pockets is irrelevant. The Texas attorney general has raised the prospect that the additional product benefit may violate Texas law because it provides for a rebate on insurance. Statutes such as these, which often date from the 1800s, are relatively common and typically bar attempts to induce the purchase of additional insurance: “Most states... have laws that prohibit insurance companies, agents, brokers, and others from giving rebates as an inducement to insurance. They generally prohibit only rebates made as an inducement to insurance and that are not set . Rptr. 67 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (<HOLDING>); Northern Assurance Co. v. Meyer, 160 N.W. 617
holding insurers right to subrogation arises only upon the insurers showing that the sum of the insureds recovery from the insurer and from persons legally responsible for the injury exceeds the insureds loss holding that insurance agents purchase of drinks for prospective insureds did not violate antirebate statute holding that an agreement between insurer and insureds whereby insurer reimbursed insureds for costs of providing insurers administrative services did not violate antirebate statutes where agreements were not offered as an inducement to purchase insurance and reimbursements were reasonable in comparison to services rendered holding that payment under settlement agreement between insurer and insureds concerning disputed premium claims was a compromise that did not violate antirebate statute holding that insureds demand to insurer was liquidated when insurer did not point to any evidence at trial in support of its contention that damages were disputed