The deadline serves the important purpose of providing finality to both the liqui dation proceeding and PCIGC’s potential liability resulting from the insolvency of an insurance carrier. If the filing of a claim provided notice to PCIGC of all potential claims arising out of the one incident, PCIGC’s potential liability would extend until the statute of limitations ran on all potential claims arising out of the original claim. As this case illustrates, such a result renders PCIGC unable to seek recovery against the bankruptcy estate of the insolvent insurer for those claims because the estate is not obligated to accept claims filed after the bar date, thus frustrating section 9-309(c) of the statute. Other courts that have address ssn., 69 Ohio St.3d 521, 634 N.E.2d 611, 615 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Whitehouse v. Rumford Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co.,
holding that the 90 day period set out in rule 591 begins to run from the date of filing rather than the date set for hearing of the posttrial motion holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act holding that the date of discrimination is the date on which a decision not to hire a plaintiff becomes effective holding that a claim filed after the last date fixed for the filing of claims was not a covered claim and noting that the requirement in the statute that claims be presented before the filing deadline evidences an intent on the part of the legislature to provide a cutoff date after which the association is no longer obligated to accept claims holding that once a liquidating court establishes a definitive bar date the ohio insurance guaranty association becomes statutorily obligated to observe the finality of that date and noting that were we to hold otherwise the specific filing deadline set forth in the ohio statute would be rendered meaningless