In Bailey v. Brodhead, 838 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ), an injured third-party claimant filed a claim with an insolvent insurer's receiver within the timetable set out by article 21.28. Id. at 924. The receiver rejected the claim, and the claimant sued within the statutorily mandated timetable. Id. The receiver then asserted a limitations defense, arguing that, although the claim and lawsuit were timely filed under Tex. Ins. Code article 21.28, the two-year statute of limitations had run as to the claimant's claim against the insured. Id. Because the claimant no longer had a viable claim against the insured, the receiver argued that it had no obligation to pay the claim. Id. The Court held that because the statute allows for the filing of a claim with a receiver and a claimant need not obtain a judgment against the insured to win a suit against a receiver, it was not necessary to sue the insured, a "potentially useless act," before suing on a claim timely filed with and rejected by the receiver. Id. at 925. Instead, the timely filing of the claim with the receiver tolled the running of limitations as to a claim against the insured and defeated the receiver's defense of limitations. Id. Bailey v. Brodhead, which was governed by the pre-1991 statutes and brought under Tex. Ins. Code article 21.28, governing receivers, not the Association, an injured third-party claimant timely filed a claim with an insolvent insurer's receiver and, when the claim was rejected, timely filed suit against the receiver. 838 S.W.2d at 924. The receiver asserted a limitations defense, arguing that, although the claim and lawsuit were timely filed, the statute of limitations had run as to the claimant's claim against the insured. Id. Because the claimant no longer had a viable claim against the insured, the receiver argued that it had no obligation to pay the claim. Id. The Court held that because the statute allowed for the filing of an unliquidated claim with a receiver and a claimant need not obtain a judgment against the insured to win a suit against a receiver, it was not necessary to sue the insured, a "potentially useless act," before suing on a claim timely filed with and rejected by the receiver. Id. at 925. Instead, the timely filing of the claim tolled the running of limitations as to a claim against the insured and defeated the receiver's defense of limitations. Id.