Polemanakos vs. Austin Fire Ins. Co. (Tex. C. C. A.).......
Press Pub. Co. vs. General Accident, Fire & Life Assur. Corporation (N. Y. S. C.)
Pride vs. Commercial Union Ins Co., Ltd., of London, England (Ala. C. A.)
Providence Washington Ins. Co. of Providence, R. I., vs. Youmans (N. Y. S. C.)
Provident Savings Life Assur. Society of New York et al. vs. Ellinger (Tex. C. C. A.)
Prudential Insurance Company of America, Petitioner, vs. John T. Moore, Administrator of John Andrew Salgue, Deceased (U. S. S. C.)
Queen of Arkansas Ins. Co. vs. Malone (Ark. S. C.)
Quick et al. vs. Quick (N. Y. S. C.)
Railway Mail Ass'n vs. Moseley et al. (U. S. C. C. A.)
Rawls vs. American Central Ins. Co. (S. C. S. C.)
Red Men's Fraternal Accident Ass'n of America vs. Rippey (Ind. S. C.)
Red Men's Fraternal Accident Ins. Co. vs. Rippey (Ind. S. C.)..... 721 Reddick vs. Northern Accident Co. et al. (Springfield [Mo.] C. A.).. 831 Reiff vs. Armour & Co. (Wash. S. C.)
Reserve Loan Life Ins. Co. vs. Boreing (Ky. C. A.)
Reynolds et al. vs. Globe Fire Underwriters of St. Louis, Mo., et al.. (La. S. C.)
Riddell vs. Rochester-German Ins. Co. of New York (R. I. S. C.).... 644 Riddell vs. Rochester-German Ins. Co. of New York (R. I. S. C.)... 781 Ridgely vs. Etna Life Ins. Co. (N. Y. S. C.)
Rippel vs. Prudential Ins. Co. of America (N. J. S. C.)
Roane vs. Union Pac. Life Ins. Co. (Ore. S. C.)
Roberts vs. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen (Ky. C. A.)
Robertson vs. District Grand Lodge No. 23. (Ala. C. A.)
Robinson vs. Mennonite Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Kan. S. C.).
Robinson vs. Western Assur. Co. (U. S. D. C.).
Roedel vs. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. (St. Louis [Mo.] C. A.).
Roeh vs. Business Men's Protective Ass'n of Des Moines (Iowa S. C.)
Rousseau vs. Brotherhood of American Yeomen (Mich. S. C.)
Roval Benefit Society vs. Naylor (Ga. C. A.)
Royal Neighbors of America vs. Laufman (Ky. C. A.)
Ruder vs. National Council, Knights and Ladies of Security (Minn. S. C.)
Russell vs. Palentine Ins. Co. (Miss. S. C.)
Rust Lumber Co. vs. General Accident, Fire & Life Assur. Corp., Ltd. (La. S. C.)
St. Paul Fire & Marine Co. vs. Bragg (Okla. S. C.)
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. et al. vs. Kirkpatrick et al. (Tenn. S. C.)
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. vs. Peck (Okla. S. C.)
Sauerbrunn vs. Hartford Life Ins. Co. (N. Y. S. C.) ..
Schmidt vs. Williamsburgh City Fire Ins. Co. of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Neb. S. C.) ...
Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. vs. Little (Ky. C. A.)
Sergeant vs. Goldsmith Dry Goods Co. et al. (Tex. C. C. A.)
Sharman vs. Continental Ins. Co. of City of New York (Cal. S. C.).. 476 Shawnee Mut. Fire Ins. Co. vs. McClure et al. (Okla. S C.).
Shepard, C. E., & Co. vs. New York Life Ins. Co. (Conn. S. C. E.).. 355 Shorey vs. Webb (Md. C. A.)
Smith vs. Arkansas Nat. Ins. Co. (Ark. S. C.)
Smith vs. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. (Ky. C. A.)
Southern States Fire Ins. Co. vs. Tabor et al. (Ga. C. A.). Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. of Oklahoma vs. Clay & Nowlin (Ark. S. C.)
Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World vs. Bailey (Tex. C. C. A.).. 603
Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World vs. Wagnon (Tex. C. C. A.) 734
Spande vs. Western Life Indemnity Co. (Ore. S. C.)
State vs. Continental Casualty Co. (La. S. C.)...
State vs. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. (Kan. S. C.)
State Division, Lone Star Ins. Union, vs. Blassengame (Tex. C. C. A.) 377
Supreme Colony United Order of Pilgrim Fathers vs. Towne et al.
(Conn. S. C. E.)
Supreme Forest Woodmen Circle vs. Knight (Ala. C. A.)
Supreme Lodge K. P. vs. Connelly (Ala. S. C.)..
Supreme Ruling of Fraternal Mystic Circle vs. Hansen (Tex. C. C. A.)
Tabor et al. vs. Modern Woodmen of America (Tex. C. C. A.).
Teasdale vs. City of New York Ins. Co. (Iowa S. C.)
Thompson vs. Interstate Life & Accident Co. (Tenn. S. C.). Thompson et al. vs. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. et al. (Iowa S. C.)
Texas Nat. Fire Ins. Co. vs. White, Blakeney & Fuller Dry Goods Co. (Tex. C. C. A.)
Tierney vs. Modern Woodmen of America (Minn. S. C.)
Tillery vs. Royal Benefit Society et al. (N. C. S. C.)..
Tourtellotte et al vs. New York Life Ins. Co. (Wis. S. C.)
Townsend vs. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York (Sower, Inter
Tripp vs. Jordan et al. (Kan. City [Mo.] C. A.)
Truan vs. Range Power Co. et al. (London Guarantee & Accident Co., Garnishee) (Minn. S. C.)
Turner vs. New York Safety Reserve Fund (N. Y. S. C.)
Ulman vs. Newman et al. (N. Y. S. C.)
United States Health & Accident Ins. Co. vs. Emerick (Ind. S. C.)........ 280 United States Health & Accident Ins. Co. vs. Savage (Ala. S. C.).... 516 Utica Sanitary Milk Co. vs. Casualty Co. of America (N. Y. C. A.).. 834 Van Reen vs. Etna Life Ins. Co. (U. S. D. C.).
Vera vs. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Mass. S. J. C.).
Vera et al. vs. Mercantile Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (Mass. S. J. C.).. 57 Vera et al. vs. Michigan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (Mass. S. J. C.)..... 57 Vicars vs. Etna Life Ins. Co. (Ky. C. A.)
Victoria S. S. Co. vs. Western Assur. Co. of Toronto (Cal. S. C.)... 804 Wachtel vs. Harrison (N. Y. S. C.)
Walker vs Supreme Knights of Maccabees (Kan. City [Mo.] C. A.). 469 Walmsley vs. Stowell et al. (Kan. City [Mo.] C. A)...
Ward vs. Queen City Fire Ins. Co. of Sioux Falls, S. D. (Ore. S. C.) 643 Warren vs. Franklin Fire Ins. Co. et al.-Same vs. Pennsylvania Fire
Ins. Co. et al. (Iowa S. C.)
Washington Fire Ins. Co. et al. vs. Cobb et al. (Tex. C. C. A.)
Weaver vs. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Ins. Co. (Colo. S. C.). 307
Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. vs. Giltnane (Ky C. A.)
Wetmore vs. McElroy (S. C. S. C.)
Wilcox vs. Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum (N. Y. C. A.)
Williams vs. Harth (Ky. C. A.)
Williams vs. New York Life Ins. Co., Inc. (Md. C. A.)
Willis et al. vs. Horticultural Fire Relief of Oregon (Ore. S. C.).... 407 Willson (Custer Nat. Bank, Substituted Plaintiff) vs. German
American Ins. Co. (Neb. S. C.)
Witt vs. Old Line Bankers' Life Ins. Co. (Neb. S. C.)
Zeitler vs. National Casualty Co. (Minn. S. C.)
TOPICAL INDEX.
FROM JANUARY TO JUNE, 1914, INCLUSIVE.
I. Control and Regulation in General.
INSURANCE BUSINESS IN GENERAL.
Issuing a policy is not a transaction of commerce.
The right of a for-
eign corporation to do business in a state other than that of
its creation depends wholly upon the will of such other state.
N. Y. Life Ins. Co. vs. Deer Lodge County (U. S.)................
Taxation-mutual fire insurance companies-reserve-statute. Common-
wealth vs. Philadelphia Manufacturers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Pa.).. 201
Surety is one who becomes responsible for the debt, default or mis-
carriage of another. A contract of surety differs from a guaranty
in that the consideration of the latter is a benefit flowing to the
grantor. Fidelity company insures against loss by default, etc.
John Church Co. VS. Etna Indemnity Co.-Etna Indemnity
Co. vs. John Church Co. (Ga.).
The business of insurance is so far affected with a public interest as to
justify legislative regulation of its rates. Munn vs. Illinois, 94
U. S. 113; Budd vs. New York, 143 U. S. 517; Brass vs. North
Dakota, 153 U. S. 391, demonstrate that a business by circum-
stances and its nature may rise from private to public concern
and consequently become subject to governmental regulation;
and the business of insurance falls within this principle. The
inactivity of a governmental power, no matter how prolonged,
does not militate against its legality when exercised. United
States vs. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366. Whether rate
regulation is necessary in regard to a particular business affected
by a public use, such as insurance, is matter for legislative judg-
ment. This court can only determine whether the Legislature
has the power to enact it. A discrimination is not invalid under
the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment if
not so arbitrary as to be beyond the wide discretion that a Legis-
lature may exercise; and so held as to a classification exempting
farmers' mutual insurance companies doing only a farm business
from the operation of an act regulating rates of insurance.
German Alliance Insurance Company vs. Lewis, Superintendent
of Insurance of the state of Kansas (U. S.).
Held, that the foreign company was not liable for the tax upon the
original premium received by the local reinsured company on
that portion of the risk reinsured. People vs. American Central
Ins. Co. (Mich.)
Under statute, any company carrying on business of insuring "against
sickness, bodily injury or death by accident," is carrying on
but a single business and need pay but a single tax. State vs.
Continental Casualty Co. (La.)
Held, that the action was one on the draft and not the policy as shown
by the prayer for recovery of protest fees which would otherwise
not be recoverable and hence there can be no recovery of the
penalty and attorney's fees. Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. of
Oklahoma vs. Clay & Nowlin (Ark.)
Held that, on broad, equitable grounds, the court would enjoin the
Insurance Commissioner's investigations as being beyond his
powers and as unnecessary to show the company's condition
where its surplus was $30,000,000 and policies affected as con-
strued by the court amounted to a small matter. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. vs. Clay, Insurance Commissioner (Ky.).......... 725
FOREIGN UNDERWRITERS, COMPANIES AND AGENTS.
Action brought after a loss under benefit certificate to cancel policy for
fraud or to restrain an action at law thereon cannot be main-
tained in absence of some special circumstances of a nature to
cause irreparable loss to plaintiff if he is relegated to his remedy
at law by way of defense to an action on policy. Where remedy
at law is adequate equity will not grant relief. Bankers' Reserve
Life Co. vs. Omberson (Minn.)
Compromise and settlement of a claim asserted on reasonable grounds
and in good faith which the parties having equal knowledge of
the facts considered doubtful, constitutes a new and valid
agreement which is enforceable though the matter compromised
be not in fact doubtful in legal contemplation. Roane vs. Union
Pacific Life Ins Co. (Ore.)
Members of an unincorporated mutual benefit association, the losses of which are ordinarily paid from deposits made by members, but the policies of which provide that members agree to pay any loss in proportion that the amount of their deposits bear to the total
deposits, are liable upon such policies in that proportion. Sergeant vs. Goldsmith Dry Goods Co. et al. (Tex.)..
Insured could, after default in payment of premiums surrender policy
in consideration of the company canceling the personal indebted-
ness incurred by the loan, though the loan contract was void.
Gillen vs. N. Y. Life Ins. Co. (Mo.)...
Deposit required of life company by Superintendent of Insurance, but
not by statute, did not create a trust in favor of domestic policy-
holders. Blake vs. Old Colony Life Ins. Co. (U. S.)..
Foreign company. Kinds of insurance business-deposits-domestic
companies-paid up capital. Clay, State Ins. Com'r, VS. Em-
ployers' Indemnity Co. of Philadelphia (Ky.)...
Statute-foreign insurance company-capital stock. Clay, State Ins.
Com'r, vs. Employers' Indemnity Co. of Philadelphia (Ky.)............. 538
Sale in Texas of stock of foreign company and taking notes for
price, does not constitute doing business in Texas within the
statutes regulating the transaction by foreign corporations.
Hughes vs. Four States Life Ins. Co. (Tex.).
The law making it unlawful for any person to act as agent for insurance
company has no application to an agent of foreign insurance
company selling stock in Texas. Hughes vs. Four States Life
Ins. Co. (Tex.).
Suit for accounting on tontine policy. Complainants would be required
to seek such a relief in the courts sitting in the state of the cor-
poration's domicile. Suit by tontine policyholders of Wisconsin
life insurance company is governed by law of state of corpora-
tion's domicile. Eberhard et al. vs. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins.
Co. (U. S.)
Kentucky statute relating to paid-up insurance and cash surrender
value are binding on foreign corporations. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co. VS.
Clay, Insurance Commissioner (Ky.)...
PENALTIES AND OFFENSES.
Under Pen. Code, making it a misdemeanor to solicit insurance without
authority to act as insurance agent, an information failing to
allege that solicitor was to receive compensation, charges no offense.
Jasper vs. State (Tex.)
II. Insurance Companies.
(A) STOCK COMPANIES.
Evidence held, to warrant finding that defendant, while secretary and general manager of a fire company that was in financial difficulties, in reinsuring its risks in another company obtained from the latter a secret profit on the unearned premiums for carrying out the deal, and that such commission was in compensation for services thereafter to be rendered to the insurer. Where such individual, in so doing, occupied a position of trust and confidence, and the reinsuring company, with knowledge of the facts, paid him a secret commission for obtaining contract for which he did not account, both he and the reinsuring company were liable therefor to the receiver of the company whose risks were reinsured. Johns vs. Arizona Fire Ins. Co. et al. (Wash.)
Where, on defendant's insurance business being taken over by the P. Company, the latter offered to assume plaintiff's policy, but he refused to consent to the novation, the P. Company was under no contractual relations with plaintiff and hence he could not recover against it for defendant's alleged breach of contract resulting from the consolidation. Provident Savings Life Assur. Soc. of New York et al. vs. Ellinger (Tex.)..
![[ocr errors][merged small]](https://books.google.co.za/books/content?id=flQ9AAAAIAAJ&output=html_text&pg=PT10&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&q=%22when+a+complete+determination+of+the+controversy+cannot+be+had+without+the+presence+of+other+parties,+the+court%22&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1KJHsPFnE-X2hWoceOdFz65odqsQ&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=811,908,28,123)
P. L. 1913, p. 152, permits any stock life insurance corporation of the
state to acquire its own capital stock for the benefit of its policy-
holders and to convert itself into a mutual company and
constitutes the Chancellor of the state the legislative agent to
administer such proceedings. Held, that the Chancellor's order
in such proceedings was reviewable by certiorari out of the
Supreme Court and not by appeal to the Court of Errors and
Appeals, regardless of the fact that it was made by the Court of
Chancery. In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of America (N. J.).................... 161
Whether a risk assumed by a mutual company should be canceled for
best interest of all other policyholders upon terms which are not
unjust, is a question which should be left to the insurer's deter-
mination. Commonwealth ex rel. Todd, Atty. -Gen. vs. Philadel-
phia Contributionship (Pa.).
Acceptance by beneficiary of the amount of the policy and investment
thereof in real estate does not constitute her a fraudulent grantee.
Williams vs. Harth (Ky.)....
Statute providing for action against domestic companies does not
authorize Attorney General to bring suit against insurance cor-
poration for receivership and a dissolution in any county other
than that where the corporation's home office is located. Great
Western Life Assur. Co. vs. State ex rel. Honan, Atty. Gen.
et al. (Ind.)
Held, to show that insured took out the policy for the benefit of bene-
ficiary and not for the benefit of creditors. Harper et al. vs.
Flatt (Ky.)
Where company changed plan proposed by agent and instead of can-
celling former policies decided to have beneficiary changed therein
and assured signed an application to that effect, the company
elected to treat the contract as in force and could not after the
death of insured take the opposite position. Pierce vs. N. Y.
Life Ins. Co. (Mo.)
Insurer on automobile policy was not required to defend a criminal
proceeding. The word "suit" referred only to civil actions.
Patterson vs. Standard Accident Ins. Co. (Mich.)..
Notice insufficient under statute which provides that before adoption
of any by-laws or amendments, the same must be mailed to all
members with notice of time, place, etc. Hackler vs. Inter-
national Travelers' Ass'n. (Tex.)
Insurance company by delivering a policy and accepting note for first
premium, thereby waived a provision declaring that policy shall
not take effect unless first premium had been paid. Noble vs.
Kansas City Life Ins. Co. (S. D.)...
The fact that insured knew that company had no authority to waive
written conditions of policy will not estop him to assert that the
agent was authorized to renew the policy orally, Willson
(Custer National Bank, substituted plaintiff) vs. German-Amer-
ican Ins. Co. (Neb.)
P. L. 1913, p. 152, permits any stock life insurance corporation of the
state to acquire its own capital stock for the benefit of its policy-
holders and to convert itself into a mutual company and
constitutes the Chancellor of the state the legislative agent to
administer such proceedings. Held, that the Chancellor's order
in such proceedings was reviewable by certiorari out of the
Supreme Court and not by appeal to the Court of Errors and
Appeals, regardless of the fact that it was made by the Court of
Chancery, In re. Prudential Ins. Co. of America (N. J.).......
Notices of assessments, if mailed, would be presumed to have been
received. State Division, Lone Star Ins. Union vs. Blassengame
(Tex.)
Insurance Agents and Brokers.
Failure of a life company to have sent to one of its agents a certificate
of authority to transact business in the state would not terminate
a contract between the company and such agent, but only sus-
pended the agent's right to solicit insurance until he received
the certificate. A life insurance agent cannot claim that his
contract with the company was in force to allow him a com-
mission on a policy procured and not in force as to other
provisions requiring the execution of a bond, etc. Fidelity Mut.
Life Ins. Co. vs. Hamilton et al. (Ark.).
Evidence, in an action by a life company for a part of first premium
retained by an agent after cancellation of policy, held to show
that the parties had treated the contract between them as in
existence when the agent procured the policy, though the com-
pany had not sent the agent a certificate of authority to procure
business as was its custom. Fidelity Mut. Life Ins. Co. vs. Hamil-
ton et al. (Ark.)...
Where defendant's only connection with fire policy was to apply for
it for the owner to plaintiff's assignor, and defendant was after-
wards requested by such assignor's general agent to have policy
canceled, which defendant proceeded to do, it was not liable to
plaintiff in damages for failure to have it property canceled.
Defendant not being the agent of plaintiff's assignor or the
agent of insured. Condon vs. Exton-Hall Brokerage & Vessel
Agency (N. Y.).
Where life agent's contract expressly terminated right to commissions
on termination of his employment, he is not entitled to re-
newal commissions on premiums payable after his return. This
provision is not abrogated by company changing, as authorized
by the contract, such commissions on future business, nor by
a mere equitable adjustment of his rights in renewal commissions
on his transfer from one district to another. Arensmeyer vs.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Mo.)...
Vesting by statute in the Chancellor, as legislative agent, through whose
instrumentality the proceeding there provided for, for acquisition
by a stock life insurance company of its stock for the benefit of
its policyholders, shall be administered, of authority to appoint
appraisers to appraise the stock, as a basis for voting by stock-
holders and policyholders, on propositions to be submitted to them,
is a matter of legislative discretion. Ripple vs. Prudential Ins.
|