<PAGE>

                                    FORM 8-K
                                 CURRENT REPORT


                     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934


Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):  June 4, 2001


                               GORAN CAPITAL INC.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


CANADA                             000-24366                 NOT APPLICABLE
(State or other                    (Commission               (IRS Employer
Jurisdiction of                    File Number)              Identification No.)
Incorporation)

                                   2 Eva Road
                                    Suite 200
                            Toronto, Ontario M9C 2A8

                4720 Kingsway Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46205
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

   Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (416) 622-0660 (Canada)
                                 (317) 259-6300

                                 Not Applicable
          (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)

ITEM 5.  OTHER EVENTS AND REGULATION FD DISCLOSURE.
         -----------------------------------------

(1) LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

     The following disclosures relate to developments in connection with certain
     legal proceedings in which the Company and its affiliates are parties:

     (a). MUTUAL SERVICE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY V. SYMONS INTERNATIONAL
     GROUP, INC., ET AL.

     (I) THE AGPI PROGRAM. As previously reported, IGF Insurance Company
     ("IGF"), a wholly owned Indiana insurance subsidiary of IGF Holdings, Inc.
     ("IGF Holdings"), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Symons
     International Group, Inc. ("SIG"), a 73% owned subsidiary of the Company,
     had been a party to a number of pending legal proceedings and claims
     relating to agricultural production interruption insurance policies (the
     "AgPI Program") which were sold by the SIG's subsidiary, IGF, during 1998.
     Sales of this product resulted in large underwriting losses by IGF and have
     since been discontinued. Approximately $29,047,653 had been paid through
     June 30, 2001 in settlement of legal proceedings and claims related to the
     AgPI Program, with payments totaling approximately $259,489 in the first
     half of 2001. A reserve of approximately $10,652,347 remains to pay future
     claims. All of the policies of insurance, which were issued in the AgPI
     Program, were issued by and under the name of Mutual Service Casualty
     Insurance Company ("MSI"), a Minnesota Corporation with its principal place
     of business located in Arden Hills, Minnesota.

<PAGE>

     (II) THE MSI/IGF AGPI ARBITRATION. A dispute arose between MSI and IGF with
     respect to the funding of the settlements of claims made on the AgPI
     Program. MSI and IGF currently are arbitrating their dispute over
     responsibility for over $60 million in claims paid by both companies to
     MSI's insureds. IGF is seeking a recovery of the $30 million in claims
     which it paid, and MSI is seeking a similar recovery of the claims which it
     paid. MSI commenced that arbitration on December 20, 2000. The parties
     subsequently selected an arbitration panel and had their first,
     organizational meeting with the panel on May 22, 2001. At that meeting, MSI
     moved for an order requiring IGF to post pre-hearing security through the
     issuance of a letter of credit in the amount of $39 million. Over IGF's
     objection, in a two to one vote, the panel on June 9, 2001, ordered IGF to
     post the $39 million in security, which IGF was to have done by June 19,
     2001. However, as of this date, IGF has not posted the required letter of
     credit, and it is financially incapable of satisfying that requirement.

     On or about June 11, 2001, IGF filed a motion in the United Sates District
     Court for the District of New Jersey seeking to vacate the arbitration
     panel's order requiring security. On June 19, 2001, MSI filed a motion in
     the same court for a ruling confirming that order. On July 26, 2001, the
     parties presented oral arguments on their cross-motions for vacation and
     confirmation of the order, and both motions were taken under advisement by
     the court.

     (III) THE MSI LAWSUIT. On June 25, 2001, MSI filed a complaint for
     preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and damages (the "MSI
     Complaint") against the Company, IGF, IGF Holdings, Granite Re, SIG, and
     certain affiliates of those companies, as well as certain members of the
     Symons family, and Acceptance in the United States District Court for the
     Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. The MSI Complaint
     alleges that the previously reported June 6, 2001 transfer of IGF's assets
     to Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc. ("Acceptance") and the payments by
     Acceptance to the Company, SIG and Granite Re violated Indiana law and are
     avoidable. In addition, the MSI Complaint alleges that Acceptance, the
     Company, SIG, IGF Holdings and the Symons Family are liable to MSI for the
     entire $39 million claim which MSI is asserting against IGF in the
     arbitration proceedings on theories of successor liability and "piercing
     the corporate veil." The MSI Complaint seeks preliminary and permanent
     injunctive relief against the defendants, an order voiding the various
     transactions between and among the defendants and an order determining that
     the defendants are directly responsible to MSI for MSI's $39 million claim
     against IGF.

     On July 26, 2001, the Company, IGF, IGF Holdings, SIG, Granite Re and their
     affiliates filed answers to the MSI Complaint. In those answers, each of
     the defendants denied the material allegations contained in the MSI
     Complaint and asserted certain affirmative defenses to that complaint. Each
     of those defendants also filed briefs in opposition to MSI's Motion for
     Preliminary Injunctive Relief. A hearing on MSI's Motion for Preliminary
     Injunctive Relief is set for Thursday, August 2, 2001. The outcome of the
     hearing on that motion is uncertain.

     In the event MSI is successful in obtaining preliminary and/or permanent
     injunctive relief against the Company and its affiliates, any such relief
     would have an adverse impact upon the Company and its affiliates and their
     respective assets and operations. Further, in the event MSI is successful
     in obtaining court orders voiding the various transactions between the
     defendants and determining that the defendants are directly responsible to
     MSI for MSI's $39 million claim against IGF, those orders and
     determinations also would have an adverse effect upon the Company and its
     affiliates and their respective assets and operations.

     (b).IGF INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. V. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY;
     CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY V. IGF INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. As previously
     reported, Symons International Group, Inc. ("SIG") and two of its
     subsidiaries, IGF Holdings, Inc. ("IGFH") and IGF Insurance Company
     ("IGF"), are parties to a "Strategic Alliance Agreement" dated February 28,
     1998 (the "SAA") with Continental Casualty Company ("CCC"), pursuant to
     which IGF acquired certain crop insurance operations of CCC. Through
     reinsurance agreements, CCC was to share in IGF's profits or losses on
     IGF's total crop insurance business. By letter dated January 3, 2001, CCC
     gave notice pursuant to the SAA of its exercise of the "Put Mechanism"
     under the SAA effective February 19, 2001. According to the SAA, upon
     exercise of the Put Mechanism, IGFH is obligated to pay CCC an amount equal
     to 5.85 times "Average Pre-Tax Income," an amount based in part upon
     payments made to CCC under the SAA. The SAA further provides that 30 days
     after exercise of the Put, IGF will execute a promissory note payable six
     months after the exercise of the Put in the principal amount equal to the
     amount owed, as specified by the SAA. In a letter dated March 20, 2001, CNA
     advised IGF that it calculated the


                                       2
<PAGE>

     principal amount due CCC to be in excess of $26 million. CNA also asserted
     a claim for amounts allegedly due under reinsurance agreements for the 2000
     crop year.

     Also, as previously reported, SIG, IGF, and IGFH believe they have claims
     against CCC and defenses to CCC's claims that may ultimately offset or
     reduce amounts owed to CCC. SIG, IGF, IGFH, and CCC engaged in discussions
     regarding possible alternatives for the resolution of the respective claims
     against each other. However, those discussions ultimately proved to be
     unsuccessful.

     Following the failure of settlement discussions, on June 4, 2001, IGF, IGFH
     and SIG filed a complaint against CCC (the "IGF Complaint") in the United
     States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis
     Division. The IGF Complaint asserts claims against CCC for fraud and
     constructive fraud in connection with the SAA and breach of contract and
     seeks relief against CCC for compensatory and punitive damages. On June 27,
     2001, CCC filed its "Answer, Separate Defenses and Counterclaim," in which
     CCC generally denied the material allegations of the IGF Complaint, and
     asserted various defenses to those claims.

     On June 6, 2001, CCC filed a complaint against IGF, IGFH and SIG (the "CCC
     Complaint") asserting claims based on the SAA and related agreements for
     approximately $25 million allegedly owed CCC by virtue of its exercise of
     the Put Mechanism, $4 million for amounts allegedly due under reinsurance
     agreements for the 2000 crop year, $1 million for certain "fronting costs,"
     and $1 million pursuant to a note executed by IGFH to CCC's affiliate in
     connection with the acquisition by IGFH of NACU in 1998. CCC also asserts
     claims to the effect that the June 6, 2001 sale of IGF assets to Acceptance
     resulted in payments of funds to SIG, the Company, and Granite Re, which
     funds allegedly should have been paid to IGF instead. On June 6, 2001, CCC
     asked the district court to enter a temporary restraining order preventing
     IGF, IGFH and SIG from disposing of the proceeds received by them in
     connection with the sale of IGF assets to Acceptance. In an emergency
     hearing, the court denied CCC the relief it requested, without prejudice to
     reconsideration of those issues at a future time. CCC has since amended the
     CCC Complaint to add the Company and Granite Re as defendants. CCC's
     counterclaim in response to the IGF Complaint asserts essentially the same
     claims against the same parties as the amended CCC Complaint.

     An initial pretrial conference is scheduled in these cases for September.
     Although SIG and the Company believe that SIG has claims against CCC and
     defenses to CCC's claims which may offset or reduce amounts owing by SIG or
     its affiliates to CCC, there can be no assurance that the ultimate
     resolution of the claims asserted by CCC against the Company and its
     affiliates will not have an adverse effect upon the Company and its
     affiliates' financial condition or results of operations.


(2) REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS.

     On June 29, 2001, the Indiana Department of Insurance ("IDOI") and IGF
     entered into a Consent Order relating to the continuing operations of IGF.
     The entry of the Consent Order followed the previously disclosed sale of
     substantially all of the crop insurance assets of IGF to Acceptance, which
     sale closed on June 6, 2001, and was a result of losses experienced by IGF
     in its crop insurance operations. In the event IGF fails to comply with the
     Consent Order, IDOI may institute proceedings under Indiana Insurance Law
     to have a rehabilitator or a liquidator appointed over the assets and
     operations of IGF.

     Among other matters, the Consent Order prohibits IGF from taking any of the
     following actions, without prior written consent of the IDOI: (i) sell or
     encumber any of its assets, property, or business in force; (ii) disburse
     funds except to pay direct unaffiliated policyholder claims and normal
     operating expenses in the ordinary course of business (which does not
     include payment to affiliates except reimbursement of costs of running IGF
     by SIG, and does not include payments in excess of $10,000); (iii) lend its
     funds; (iv) make investments except in specified types of investments; (v)
     incur debts or obligations except in the ordinary course of business to
     unaffiliated parties; (vi) merge or consolidate with another company; (vii)
     enter into new, or amend existing, reinsurance agreements; (viii) complete,
     enter into or amend any transaction or arrangement with an affiliate; or
     (ix) disburse funds or assets to any affiliate. The Consent Order requires
     IGF to provide the IDOI with monthly written updates and immediate notices
     of any material change regarding the status of litigation with Mutual
     Service Casualty Insurance Company and with Continental Casualty Company,
     statutory reserves, number of


                                       3
<PAGE>

     non-standard automobile insurance policies in-force by state, and reports
     of all non-claims related disbursements. IGF also is required to cease
     writing new business and cease renewing existing business in all states
     except Pennsylvania, and to cease writing new business and renewing
     existing business in Pennsylvania by July 30, 2001, unless the IDOI grants
     a written extension prior to July 30, 2001, which extension was not
     granted. IGF's failure to comply with the Consent Order may cause the IDOI
     to begin proceedings to have a rehabilitator or liquidator appointed for
     IGF or to extend the provisions of the Consent Order.

ITEM 7.  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS
         ---------------------------------

(1)  Financial Statements:  None.

(2)  Proforma Financial Equation:  None.

(3)  Exhibits:  None.


                                   SIGNATURES

                  Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange act of
1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by
the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


Dated:  August 3, 2001                         GORAN CAPITAL  INC.


                                      By: /s/ Douglas H. Symons
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Douglas H. Symons, Chief Operating Officer


                                       4
[{"type": "8-K", "sequence": "1", "filename": "g8k-25381.txt", "description": "8-K", "secsgml_size_bytes": 15112}]
{"company-data": {"conformed-name": "GORAN CAPITAL INC", "cik": "0000925600", "assigned-sic": "6331", "state-of-incorporation": "A6", "fiscal-year-end": "1231"}, "filing-values": {"form-type": "8-K", "act": "34", "file-number": "000-24366", "film-number": "1697184"}, "business-address": {"street1": "4720 KINGSWAY DR", "city": "INDIANAPOLIS", "state": "IN", "zip": "46205", "phone": "3172596416"}, "mail-address": {"street1": "4720 KINGSWAY DR", "city": "INDIANAPOLIS", "state": "IN", "zip": "46205"}}
FORM 8-K
                                 CURRENT REPORT

                     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):  June 4, 2001

                               GORAN CAPITAL INC.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

CANADA                             000-24366                 NOT APPLICABLE
(State or other                    (Commission               (IRS Employer
Jurisdiction of                    File Number)              Identification No.)
Incorporation)

                                   2 Eva Road
                                    Suite 200
                            Toronto, Ontario M9C 2A8

                4720 Kingsway Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46205
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

   Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (416) 622-0660 (Canada)
                                 (317) 259-6300

                                 Not Applicable
          (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)

ITEM 5.  OTHER EVENTS AND REGULATION FD DISCLOSURE.
         -----------------------------------------

(1) LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

     The following disclosures relate to developments in connection with certain
     legal proceedings in which the Company and its affiliates are parties:

     (a). MUTUAL SERVICE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY V. SYMONS INTERNATIONAL
     GROUP, INC., ET AL.

     (I) THE AGPI PROGRAM. As previously reported, IGF Insurance Company
     ("IGF"), a wholly owned Indiana insurance subsidiary of IGF Holdings, Inc.
     ("IGF Holdings"), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Symons
     International Group, Inc. ("SIG"), a 73% owned subsidiary of the Company,
     had been a party to a number of pending legal proceedings and claims
     relating to agricultural production interruption insurance policies (the
     "AgPI Program") which were sold by the SIG's subsidiary, IGF, during 1998.
     Sales of this product resulted in large underwriting losses by IGF and have
     since been discontinued. Approximately $29,047,653 had been paid through
     June 30, 2001 in settlement of legal proceedings and claims related to the
     AgPI Program, with payments totaling approximately $259,489 in the first
     half of 2001. A reserve of approximately $10,652,347 remains to pay future
     claims. All of the policies of insurance, which were issued in the AgPI
     Program, were issued by and under the name of Mutual Service Casualty
     Insurance Company ("MSI"), a Minnesota Corporation with its principal place
     of business located in Arden Hills, Minnesota.
(II) THE MSI/IGF AGPI ARBITRATION. A dispute arose between MSI and IGF with
     respect to the funding of the settlements of claims made on the AgPI
     Program. MSI and IGF currently are arbitrating their dispute over
     responsibility for over $60 million in claims paid by both companies to
     MSI's insureds. IGF is seeking a recovery of the $30 million in claims
     which it paid, and MSI is seeking a similar recovery of the claims which it
     paid. MSI commenced that arbitration on December 20, 2000. The parties
     subsequently selected an arbitration panel and had their first,
     organizational meeting with the panel on May 22, 2001. At that meeting, MSI
     moved for an order requiring IGF to post pre-hearing security through the
     issuance of a letter of credit in the amount of $39 million. Over IGF's
     objection, in a two to one vote, the panel on June 9, 2001, ordered IGF to
     post the $39 million in security, which IGF was to have done by June 19,
     2001. However, as of this date, IGF has not posted the required letter of
     credit, and it is financially incapable of satisfying that requirement.

     On or about June 11, 2001, IGF filed a motion in the United Sates District
     Court for the District of New Jersey seeking to vacate the arbitration
     panel's order requiring security. On June 19, 2001, MSI filed a motion in
     the same court for a ruling confirming that order. On July 26, 2001, the
     parties presented oral arguments on their cross-motions for vacation and
     confirmation of the order, and both motions were taken under advisement by
     the court.

     (III) THE MSI LAWSUIT. On June 25, 2001, MSI filed a complaint for
     preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and damages (the "MSI
     Complaint") against the Company, IGF, IGF Holdings, Granite Re, SIG, and
     certain affiliates of those companies, as well as certain members of the
     Symons family, and Acceptance in the United States District Court for the
     Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. The MSI Complaint
     alleges that the previously reported June 6, 2001 transfer of IGF's assets
     to Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc. ("Acceptance") and the payments by
     Acceptance to the Company, SIG and Granite Re violated Indiana law and are
     avoidable. In addition, the MSI Complaint alleges that Acceptance, the
     Company, SIG, IGF Holdings and the Symons Family are liable to MSI for the
     entire $39 million claim which MSI is asserting against IGF in the
     arbitration proceedings on theories of successor liability and "piercing
     the corporate veil." The MSI Complaint seeks preliminary and permanent
     injunctive relief against the defendants, an order voiding the various
     transactions between and among the defendants and an order determining that
     the defendants are directly responsible to MSI for MSI's $39 million claim
     against IGF.

     On July 26, 2001, the Company, IGF, IGF Holdings, SIG, Granite Re and their
     affiliates filed answers to the MSI Complaint. In those answers, each of
     the defendants denied the material allegations contained in the MSI
     Complaint and asserted certain affirmative defenses to that complaint. Each
     of those defendants also filed briefs in opposition to MSI's Motion for
     Preliminary Injunctive Relief. A hearing on MSI's Motion for Preliminary
     Injunctive Relief is set for Thursday, August 2, 2001. The outcome of the
     hearing on that motion is uncertain.

     In the event MSI is successful in obtaining preliminary and/or permanent
     injunctive relief against the Company and its affiliates, any such relief
     would have an adverse impact upon the Company and its affiliates and their
     respective assets and operations. Further, in the event MSI is successful
     in obtaining court orders voiding the various transactions between the
     defendants and determining that the defendants are directly responsible to
     MSI for MSI's $39 million claim against IGF, those orders and
     determinations also would have an adverse effect upon the Company and its
     affiliates and their respective assets and operations.

     (b).IGF INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. V. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY;
     CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY V. IGF INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. As previously
     reported, Symons International Group, Inc. ("SIG") and two of its
     subsidiaries, IGF Holdings, Inc. ("IGFH") and IGF Insurance Company
     ("IGF"), are parties to a "Strategic Alliance Agreement" dated February 28,
     1998 (the "SAA") with Continental Casualty Company ("CCC"), pursuant to
     which IGF acquired certain crop insurance operations of CCC. Through
     reinsurance agreements, CCC was to share in IGF's profits or losses on
     IGF's total crop insurance business. By letter dated January 3, 2001, CCC
     gave notice pursuant to the SAA of its exercise of the "Put Mechanism"
     under the SAA effective February 19, 2001. According to the SAA, upon
     exercise of the Put Mechanism, IGFH is obligated to pay CCC an amount equal
     to 5.85 times "Average Pre-Tax Income," an amount based in part upon
     payments made to CCC under the SAA. The SAA further provides that 30 days
     after exercise of the Put, IGF will execute a promissory note payable six
     months after the exercise of the Put in the principal amount equal to the
     amount owed, as specified by the SAA. In a letter dated March 20, 2001, CNA
     advised IGF that it calculated the

                                       2
principal amount due CCC to be in excess of $26 million. CNA also asserted
     a claim for amounts allegedly due under reinsurance agreements for the 2000
     crop year.

     Also, as previously reported, SIG, IGF, and IGFH believe they have claims
     against CCC and defenses to CCC's claims that may ultimately offset or
     reduce amounts owed to CCC. SIG, IGF, IGFH, and CCC engaged in discussions
     regarding possible alternatives for the resolution of the respective claims
     against each other. However, those discussions ultimately proved to be
     unsuccessful.

     Following the failure of settlement discussions, on June 4, 2001, IGF, IGFH
     and SIG filed a complaint against CCC (the "IGF Complaint") in the United
     States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis
     Division. The IGF Complaint asserts claims against CCC for fraud and
     constructive fraud in connection with the SAA and breach of contract and
     seeks relief against CCC for compensatory and punitive damages. On June 27,
     2001, CCC filed its "Answer, Separate Defenses and Counterclaim," in which
     CCC generally denied the material allegations of the IGF Complaint, and
     asserted various defenses to those claims.

     On June 6, 2001, CCC filed a complaint against IGF, IGFH and SIG (the "CCC
     Complaint") asserting claims based on the SAA and related agreements for
     approximately $25 million allegedly owed CCC by virtue of its exercise of
     the Put Mechanism, $4 million for amounts allegedly due under reinsurance
     agreements for the 2000 crop year, $1 million for certain "fronting costs,"
     and $1 million pursuant to a note executed by IGFH to CCC's affiliate in
     connection with the acquisition by IGFH of NACU in 1998. CCC also asserts
     claims to the effect that the June 6, 2001 sale of IGF assets to Acceptance
     resulted in payments of funds to SIG, the Company, and Granite Re, which
     funds allegedly should have been paid to IGF instead. On June 6, 2001, CCC
     asked the district court to enter a temporary restraining order preventing
     IGF, IGFH and SIG from disposing of the proceeds received by them in
     connection with the sale of IGF assets to Acceptance. In an emergency
     hearing, the court denied CCC the relief it requested, without prejudice to
     reconsideration of those issues at a future time. CCC has since amended the
     CCC Complaint to add the Company and Granite Re as defendants. CCC's
     counterclaim in response to the IGF Complaint asserts essentially the same
     claims against the same parties as the amended CCC Complaint.

     An initial pretrial conference is scheduled in these cases for September.
     Although SIG and the Company believe that SIG has claims against CCC and
     defenses to CCC's claims which may offset or reduce amounts owing by SIG or
     its affiliates to CCC, there can be no assurance that the ultimate
     resolution of the claims asserted by CCC against the Company and its
     affiliates will not have an adverse effect upon the Company and its
     affiliates' financial condition or results of operations.

(2) REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS.

     On June 29, 2001, the Indiana Department of Insurance ("IDOI") and IGF
     entered into a Consent Order relating to the continuing operations of IGF.
     The entry of the Consent Order followed the previously disclosed sale of
     substantially all of the crop insurance assets of IGF to Acceptance, which
     sale closed on June 6, 2001, and was a result of losses experienced by IGF
     in its crop insurance operations. In the event IGF fails to comply with the
     Consent Order, IDOI may institute proceedings under Indiana Insurance Law
     to have a rehabilitator or a liquidator appointed over the assets and
     operations of IGF.

     Among other matters, the Consent Order prohibits IGF from taking any of the
     following actions, without prior written consent of the IDOI: (i) sell or
     encumber any of its assets, property, or business in force; (ii) disburse
     funds except to pay direct unaffiliated policyholder claims and normal
     operating expenses in the ordinary course of business (which does not
     include payment to affiliates except reimbursement of costs of running IGF
     by SIG, and does not include payments in excess of $10,000); (iii) lend its
     funds; (iv) make investments except in specified types of investments; (v)
     incur debts or obligations except in the ordinary course of business to
     unaffiliated parties; (vi) merge or consolidate with another company; (vii)
     enter into new, or amend existing, reinsurance agreements; (viii) complete,
     enter into or amend any transaction or arrangement with an affiliate; or
     (ix) disburse funds or assets to any affiliate. The Consent Order requires
     IGF to provide the IDOI with monthly written updates and immediate notices
     of any material change regarding the status of litigation with Mutual
     Service Casualty Insurance Company and with Continental Casualty Company,
     statutory reserves, number of

                                       3
non-standard automobile insurance policies in-force by state, and reports
     of all non-claims related disbursements. IGF also is required to cease
     writing new business and cease renewing existing business in all states
     except Pennsylvania, and to cease writing new business and renewing
     existing business in Pennsylvania by July 30, 2001, unless the IDOI grants
     a written extension prior to July 30, 2001, which extension was not
     granted. IGF's failure to comply with the Consent Order may cause the IDOI
     to begin proceedings to have a rehabilitator or liquidator appointed for
     IGF or to extend the provisions of the Consent Order.

ITEM 7.  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS
         ---------------------------------

(1)  Financial Statements:  None.

(2)  Proforma Financial Equation:  None.

(3)  Exhibits:  None.

                                   SIGNATURES

                  Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange act of
1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by
the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

Dated:  August 3, 2001                         GORAN CAPITAL  INC.

                                      By: /s/ Douglas H. Symons
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Douglas H. Symons, Chief Operating Officer

                                       4