the liability of third parties, such as insurance companies, who may be secondarily obligated for the debts of the bankrupt debtor. See In re Jet Florida Systems, Inc., 883 F.2d 970, 975 (11th Cir.1989)(stating that the ‘ “fresh start policy” [of the Bankruptcy Code] is not intended to provide a method by which an insurer can escape its obligations based simply on the financial misfortunes of the insured’). See also Jason Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 224 B.R. 315, 321 (Bankr.D.Md.1998) (stating that ‘the discharge in bankruptcy, along with the coextensive permanent injunction and fresh start, are exclusive to the debtor and do not otherwise affect the enforcement of any underlying debt, or any nondebtor liability thereon ’Xemphasis in original); In re Bracy, 449 F.Supp. 70, 71 (D.Mont.1978)(<HOLDING>).” In a further response to Gerling’s argument,
holding that effect of bankruptcy discharge under arizona law is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debtor holding that if an insurance company is as a matter of state law liable to a plaintiff in the personal injury action subsequent discharge of the assured in bankruptcy does not alter the obligation of the insurance company and further finding that it is the policy of the law to discharge the bankrupt but not to release from liabilities those who are liable with him holding that even if an insurance broker is the agent of the insurance company for purposes of soliciting and procuring the policy that would not necessarily make the broker the agent of the insurance company for the purpose of receiving notice of suits and claims holding that under georgia law a holder of a master insurance policy is an agent of the insurance company and not the insurer holding a georgia law requiring a plaintiff in a direct action against an insurance company to attach a copy of the insurance policy to his complaint inapplicable because it conflicts with rule 8