license revocation, on any company that willfully issues an unapproved liability insurance policy. See Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 8, § 4209 (Supp.1999). In fact, most courts that have addressed this question have declined to invalidate a policy exclusion merely because the insurer failed to obtain regulatory approval. See, e.g., Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, PA, 975 F.2d 677, 682-83 (10th Cir.1992) (applying Oklahoma law); Great Lakes Container Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA., 727 F.2d 30, 32 (1st Cir.1984) (applying New Hampshire law); Cage v. Litchfield Mut. Ins. Co., 45 Conn.Supp. 29§, 713 A.2d 281, 285-89 (1997) (collecting cases). But see, e.g., Hawkins Chem., Inc. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 159 F.3d 348, 352 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Under these circumstances, we are not
holding that under georgia law a holder of a master insurance policy is an agent of the insurance company and not the insurer holding that notice and a hearing were required before the commissioner of insurance could require an insurance company to change its definition of at fault in order to secure approval of an increase in insurance rates holding that a policy with an excess other insurance clause provides no coverage until a policy with a pro rata other insurance clause is exhausted holding that under minnesota law an insurance policy or provision not filed with the commissioner of insurance is unenforceable holding that insureds widow as beneficiary of life insurance policy had standing as an injured person under the insurance code