Am. Motorists' Ins. Co. v. Cent. Garage
Decision Date | 07 November 1933 |
Citation | 169 A. 121 |
Parties | AMERICAN MOTORISTS' INS. CO. v. CENTRAL GARAGE. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Grafton County; Woodbury, Judge.
Petition for declaratory judgment by the American Motorists' Insurance Company against the Central Garage. After a preliminary hearing upon the pleadings and agreed facts, certain questions were transferred toy the superior court without ruling. Case discharged.
Petition for a declaratory judgment under chapter 86 of the Laws of 1929. Facts agreed. The two questions of law which are hereinafter stated were transferred without ruling by Woodbury, J.
The plaintiff is a corporation established under the laws of Illinois and having its home office in the city of Chicago. The defendants are Donald C. Lamson and Harland L. Goodhue, both of Bristol in the county of Grafton, partners doing business under the firm name of Central Garage. On or about March 6,
1931, the plaintiff, through its local agent, Lawrence Blake, of said Bristol, issued two insurance policies to the defendants, one for workmen's compensation and employers' liability, and the other for automobile liability. On July 31 and August 1, 1931, respectively, cancellation notices were sent to the defendants directly by the plaintiff company from its home office in Chicago.
After a preliminary hearing upon the pleadings and agreed facts, the following questions were transferred by the superior court without ruling in advance of trial:
Other facts appear in the opinion.
Demond, Woodworth, Sulloway & Rogers, of Concord, for plaintiff.
Donald Knowlton, of Concord, for defendant.
The course pursued by the plaintiff in attempting to secure a decision upon the question of its duty to defend the suits which have been brought against the defendants in advance of their trial is undoubtedly correct. "Ordinarily, and in the absence of agreement of the parties, the issue is one calling for preliminary presentation, so that the insurer's right or duty to defend the action for negligence may be first determined." Sauriolle v. O'Gorman, 86 N. H. 39, 19, 163 A. 717, 723. The Declaratory Judgment Act (Laws 1929, c. 86) provides a convenient procedure for determining such a question, and the present petition is properly brought thereunder.
The first question transferred by the superior court reads as follows: This question arises by reason of the following provisions of the statute relating to foreign insurance companies and their agents: * * *"P. L. c. 275, § 11,
The position of the defendants with reference to the effect of the foregoing provision is thus stated in their brief:
Both of the policies in question contained provisions that notice of cancellation mailed to the address of the assured should be a sufficient notice on the part of the company. The defendants argue that these provisions are in conflict with statute and for that reason nugatory.
The section of the statute above quoted had its origin in Laws of 1870, c. 1, § 3, which provided: First, that no foreign insurance company should "transact any insurance business in this State" unless it should first obtain a license from the insurance commissioner; second, that after the insurance commissioner was satisfied that the requirements of the statute had been complied with by a foreign insurance company, he should issue a license "authorizing such company to do insurance business by authorized agents, subject to the laws of this State." This language was retained without change in G. L. 1878, c. 174, § 2, and Laws of 1889, c. 86, § 1. Obviously the purpose of the Legislature was to permit the transaction, under a license, of the business which foreign insurance companies were forbidden to do without a license, viz., "insurance business in this state."
In the revision of 1891, the statutory provisions relating to foreign insurance companies were rearranged and the long sections of the General Laws were replaced by a larger number of comparatively shorter sections in chapter 169 of the Public Statutes. The first provision of Laws of 1870, c. 1, § 3, above referred to, became section 1 of P. S. c. 169, in the following form:
The second provision above referred to, concerning the issuance of licenses, became section 6 of the same chapter, which provides that if the provisions of the preceding sections have been complied with and the insurance commissioner is satisfied that the company is entitled to confidence, "he shall grant a license to it to do insurance business by authorized agents within the state, subject to the laws of the state." (Italics ours.) All the language of the Public Statutes above quoted was retained in the revision of 1926. P. L. c. 275, §§ 1 and 11.
The prohibition against the transaction of "any insurance business in this state" having been separated in the Public Statutes from the provision authorizing the issuance of a license by four intermediate sections, the words "within the state" were apparently inserted after the word "agent" in the sixth section above referred to, not for the purpose of changing the existing law, but to avoid the seeming absurdity of directing the insurance commissioner to grant licenses to foreign Insurance companies "to do insurance business by authorized agents" which it must be assumed they were already authorized to do by the laws of the states in which they were incorporated. The conclusion that no material change in the law was intended is supported by the notation in the margin of the Commissioner's Report of 1891, indicating that only verbal changes were suggested in section 6. Corns. Rep. 1891, 546-48. The meaning of this section, like that of the statute of 1870, is that the company shall be licensed to do insurance business within the state, by authorized agents.
It is true that subsequent sections of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co.
...655; Black v. Little (D.C.) 8 F.Supp. 867; Ohio Casualty Co. v. Plummer (D.C.S.D. of Tex.) 13 F.Supp. 169; American Motorists' Ins. Co. v. Central Garage, 86 N.H. 362, 169 A. 121; Penn et al. v. Glenn (D.C.) 10 F.Supp. 483; Post v. Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co., 227 App.Div. 156, 237 N.Y.S. 64......
-
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hubbard
...D.C.N.J., 18 F.Supp. 450; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hearn, 1936, 233 Ala. 31, 170 So. 59; American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Central Garage, 1933, 86 N.H. 362, 169 A. 121. When the policy obligates the insurer to defend, declarations seeking to free him from the obligation have b......
-
Boston Consol. Gas Co. v. Dep't of Pub. Utilities
...87 L.Ed. 626;Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591, 602, 64 S.Ct. 281, 88 L.Ed. 333;American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Central Garage, 86 N.H. 362, 169 A. 121;Carolina Aluminum Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 4 Cir., 97 F.2d 435. See Broderick's Case, 320 Mass. 149, 67......
-
Peterson v. John J. Reilly, Inc.
...immaterial in the proceedings before the master. Arlington Mills v. Salem, 83 N.H. 148, 159, 140 A. 163; American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Central Garage, 86 N.H. 362, 371, 169 A. 121. The findings and rulings of the master with respect to the third mortgage paralleled those relating to the se......