appear to have received a windfall. Obviously, if AIGA had properly brought the workers’ compensation carrier into the third-party - claim, as happens in most cases, the carrier would not be entitled to receive reimbursement for the médical expenses and compensation benefits paid on the employee’s behalf; AIGA simply would have never made a payment at all. However, to allow an insurer, such as the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier in this case, to reap the ultimate benefit of an AIGA payment would violate the core principles upon which AIGA was established: (1) making injured individuals whole despite an insurer’s insolvency and (2) shifting the loss to the entire insurance industry for any insurer’s insolvency. Compare Alabama Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Hamm, 601 So.2d 419 (Ala.1992) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, we note that our Legislature
holding that insured was entitled to collect underinsuredmotorist insurance without a setoff from other liabilityinsurance coverages because the policies covered different risks holding that covered employee stands in the same position as an insured in a private insurance contract holding claims for negligent procurement of insurance accrued on date the insured purchased the insurance policies holding that variable insurance policies are covered securities under slusa holding that despite assurances from the insurance company that the insured could file the pol after femas deadline the insured could not collect because the insured was responsible for timely filing