Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Speer

• Decision Date: 18 April 1932
• Docket Number: No. 253.,253.
• Citation: 48 S.W.2d 553
• Parties: CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. v. SPEER, Judge.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 553

48 S.W.2d 553

CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. v. SPEER, Judge.

No. 253.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 18, 1932.

Prohibition to Circuit Court, Union County, Second Division; W. A. Speer, Judge.

Application by Connecticut General Life Insurance Company against W. A. Speer, Judge, for a writ of prohibition.

Writ granted.

Powell, Smead & Knox, of El Dorado, for appellant.

Surrey E. Gilliam, of El Dorado, for appellee.

HART, C. J.

The Connecticut General Life Insurance Company filed in this court an application for a writ of prohibition against W. A. Speer, judge of the second division of the Union circuit court, to prohibit said court from exercising jurisdiction in a suit brought against the petitioner by Walter J. Williams.

The record shows that Williams brought suit in said circuit court against the Connecticut General Life Insurance Company to recover upon two contracts of insurance which were issued under what is called the "group insurance" plan.

The Connecticut General Life Insurance Company was organized and doing business under the laws of Connecticut. It issued a group or master policy of insurance to the Gulf Oil Corporation of Pennsylvania, and its subsidiary corporations. The Gulf Refining Company of Louisiana was one of the subsidiary corporations. The master policy contains in detail the terms upon which the insurance is issued.

In one of the contracts sued on, the premiums were paid by the Gulf Oil Corporation of Pennsylvania without any reference to any amounts to be collected from the employees of the oil corporation.

On the second contract sued on, the employee signed an application in blank form which reads as follows:

                "Application
                "No. ______
                                      "Date ______
                

"I hereby apply for Contributory Group Life Insurance in amount now or hereafter applicable to my class provided for in the policy issued by the Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and rider dated Nov. 1, 1929, to the Gulf Oil Corporation of Pennsylvania, agreeing to be bound by the rules governing this insurance, and I authorize the Gulf Oil Corporation of Pennsylvania and or subsidiaries and or affiliated companies, to deduct in advance the necessary amount per month from my pay, to apply towards premium for said insurance.

"I reserve the right to rescind the order in writing at any time.

                                 "[Signature] ________."
                

This application or deduction blank was presented to Williams while at work on a lease in Union county, Ark., by an employee of the Gulf Refining Corporation of Louisiana. The insured, Williams, was working for the latter company at the time he signed the application. The insurance company had nothing whatever to do with the matter.

Service was had in the suit on the insurance contract upon petitioner in the manner provided by statute for suing foreign corporations doing business in this state.

The insurance company appeared only for the purpose of quashing the service of summons upon it, and the ground therefor was that it was a foreign corporation, that it was not authorized to do business in the state of Arkansas, and that it had not done business in said state.

It is first sought to establish jurisdiction in the circuit court in the suit on the insurance contract by the agency of the oil corporation in taking applications for insurance for its employees.

We have not set out the master contract of insurance in detail, and do not deem it necessary to do so. It is sufficient to say that similar contracts of insurance under the group plan have been construed not to constitute the insured as agent of the insurer to solicit applications for insurance from its employees. Duval v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 82 N. H. 543, 136 A. 400, 50 A. L. R. 1276, and Leach v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 124 Kan. 584, 261 P. 603.

In one of the contracts, the employer paid all the premiums and costs of handling the insurance for its employees. In the other deduction was made from the wages of the employees signing the application to pay a part of the premium. Under these circumstances, the employer was not the agent of the insurance company, and had no authority to act for it.

The fact that the employees of the oil corporation were to be insured did not create the oil corporation the agent of the insurance company. It was merely one of the terms or conditions upon which the insurance company would issue a policy at the request of the employer. By the terms of the policy, the insurance company looked to the employer for...