American Indem. Co. v. Southern Missionary College
Decision Date | 05 June 1953 |
Citation | 195 Tenn. 513,31 Beeler 513,260 S.W.2d 269 |
Parties | , 195 Tenn. 513, 39 A.L.R.2d 714 AMERICAN INDEMNITY CO. v. SOUTH. ERN MISSIONARY COLLEGE. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
McAllester & McAllester, Chattanooga, for appellant.
Wilkerson & Wilkerson, Chattanooga, for appellee.
The American Indemnity Company issued a policy of insurance to the Southern Missionary College in the maximum amount of $4,000, indemnifying it against loss caused by safe-burglary or robbery occurring on the premises of the insured. The policy was issued under date of December 20, 1950, for a period of 3 years. Three endorsements were later issued, but they are not material to a determination of the issue involved in this controversy.
The Southern Missionary College, located at Collegedale, Hamilton County, Tennessee, was chartered as 'an eleemosynary corporation organized under the laws of Tennessee for the purpose of conducting an educational institution.' In connection with its educational activities and as a part thereof it carries on a limited industrial and mercantile program for the purpose of enabling students to work their way through school and All its receipts and income inure to the sole benefit of the college.
In June and July, 1951, the officers and directors of the Southern Missionary College applied for a charter of incorporation under the laws of Tennessee to be known as 'Collegedale Mercantile Enterprises, Inc.', the same being a Tennessee corporation for profit. This charter was issued by the Secretary of State on July 11, 1951, and recorded in the Register's office of Hamilton County. The purposes of this corporation are set out in its charter as follows:
The corporation was authorized to issue 1,000 shares of common stock of no par value and to begin business when $1,000 of its stock had been subscribed for. The Southern Missionary College subscribed for all the capital stock of the said 'Collegedale Mercantile Enterprises, Inc.' The consideration for said stock was the transfer to the Collegedale Mercantile Enterprises, Inc., by the Southern Mississionary College of all of the assets owned by the latter in connection with the commissary or college store, expediting the purchase of automobiles by full time employees of the Seventh-Day Adventists Church, the service station or garage, college creamery, etc. Officers and directors of the said Collegedale Mercantile Enterprises, Inc. were and are officers and directors of the Missionary College.
The foregoing statement of facts is the basis for a bill in the Chancery Court to recover on the insurance policy referred to. The bill alleges that on the night of January 19, 1952, and while the policy was in full force and effect the complainant, Southern Missionary College 'sustained a loss from burglary of $5,880.82 in cash taken from the safe in the college store, located on the premises of insured, and damage to property in the approximate amount of $339.55.' It is charged that the defendant was duly notified and after an investigation refused payment. The bill also seeks to recover a penalty of 25% on the ground that the defendant's refusal to pay was in bad faith.
The American Indemnity Company demurred to the bill upon the following grounds:
The Chancellor overruled the demurrer and granted a discretionary appeal to this Court.
The assignments of error reflect the theory of the appellant, (1) that 'the policy did not cover any other person except the Southern Missionary College'; (2) 'The burglary occurred from the office of the Collegedale Mercantile Enterprises, Inc. and the loss was not the loss of the complainant'. The contention made in the third and fourth assignments is that the corporations are separate and distinct entities and the policy, made an exhibit to the bill, did not insure any loss that was suffered by the Collegedale Mercantile Enterprises, Inc.
The undisputed factual issue is, as stated by the Chancellor in his opinion: 'The complainant held all the stock of the subordinate corporation and controlled its activities through the same personnel as it had done before its procurement of the charter of the subordinate corporation.' The stockholders and directors of the parent corporation and the subordinate corporation were identical. The latter was wholly owned and controlled by the complainant. The demurrer admits the foregoing facts to be true; also that all benefits from any and all business activities carried on by Mercantile Enterprises, Inc. belonged to the complainant.
We think the two corporations are separate entities, but their existence as such is a mere fiction of the law. The subordinate corporation does the bidding of its parent down to the minutest detail. The domination of the parent over its offspring was so complete as to make them practically indistinguishable except in name. There can be no other reasonable conclusion from the admitted facts but that Mercantile Enterprises was an agency or instrumentality of the complainant, and all property including the money burglarized was in reality the property of the latter, subject of course to the claims of creditors of the former.
The great weight of authority supports the proposition that a corporation will be regarded as a legal entity and will not be ignored by the courts except 'where it is used as a blind or instrumentality to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, or perpetrate a fraud'. In support of the foregoing appellant's counsel cite Majestic Co. v. Orpheum Circuit, 8 Cir., 21 F.2d 720, and numerous other cases. Our own cases are to the same effect. Thus in Fidelity Trust Co. v. Service Laundry Co., 160 Tenn. 57, 22 S.W.2d 6, 7, there appears the statement that a corporation To the same effect is Nashville v. Ward, 84 Tenn. 27, 30-31, and other cases cited in the opinion. The Court of Appeals dealt with this question (opinion by Felts, J.) in Tenn. Consol. Coal Co. v. Home Ice & Coal Co., 25 Tenn.App. 316, 156 S.W.2d 454, 458, and held that under the proven facts a subordinate corporation became the 'agency or instrumentality of the parent'. (Certiorari denied.) See also 7...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reishus v. Implement Dealers Mut. Ins. Co.
...68 N.W.2d 385; Banner Laundry Co. v. Great Eastern Casualty Co., 148 Minn. 29, 180 N.W. 997; American Indemnity Co. v. Southern Missionary College, 195 Tenn. 513, 260 S.W.2d 269, 39 A.L.R.2d 714; Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. Paul, 35 Tenn.App. 394, 245 S.W.2d 775; National Farmers P......
-
Jam Inc. v. Nautilus Ins. Co.
...1060 (1890); Fenter v. Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., 258 Or. 545, 484 P.2d 310, 313 (1971); Am. Indem. Co. v. S. Missionary Coll., 195 Tenn. 513, 260 S.W.2d 269, 272 (1953); St. Paul Lloyd's Ins. Co. v. Fong Chun Huang, 808 S.W.2d 524, 527 (Tex.App.1991); Pac. Fire Ins. Co. v. ......
- Parma Heights v. Jaros
-
Duncan v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...Tenn.App., 495 S.W.2d 821 (1971). This principle was further liberalized by our decision in American Indemnity Co. v. Southern Missionary Col., 195 Tenn. 513, 260 S.W.2d 269, 39 A.L.R.2d 714 (1953) in which it was held that it was not necessary to show for a certainty that the insured would......