Dresser v. Hartford Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 09 June 1908 |
Citation | 70 A. 39,80 Conn. 681 |
Parties | DRESSER et al. v. HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO. et al. |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Silas A. Robinson, Judge.
Action by Charles H. Dresser and certain other holders of certificates of insurance in the "safety fund" department of the Hartford Life Insurance Company against it and others for an injunction and an accounting, and for damages and other relief on account of the alleged actual and intended misappropriation of the funds and mismanagement of the business of such department. Demurrers were sustained to the bill, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.
The plaintiffs are 31 holders of certificates of insurance issued by the defendant insurance company on or about the 1st of December, 1890. The defendants are the Hartford Insurance Company, its president, secretary, and its directors, who are said to constitute a majority of its stockholders, and the Security Company of Hartford. The first seven paragraphs of the complaint allege that the defendant insurance company was originally chartered in 1866, with a capital stock of $200,000, under the name of the Hartford Accident Insurance Company; that its charter has since been amended by different acts of the Legislature; that with a capital stock of $500,000 it now transacts insurance business under various plans, including level premium life insurance, for the benefit of its stockholders, and that prior to 1880 it had invented a plan of assessment life insurance which was published and known as the "safety fund plan," the principal features of which, as set forth in paragraph 8 of the complaint, are the following:
Other material allegations in the several paragraphs of the complaint are as follows:
Exhibit A, referred to in paragraph 9, contains, among other statements, the following:
"(10) The terms of said certificates were purposely made so involved that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the ordinary person to understand the true meaning and import thereof, in order to enable said company to defraud and impose upon the public and certificate holders, and only a person learned in the technicalities of insurance and law can fully understand the same." (A copy of said circular is attached to said paragraph.)
Exhibit B consists of the application for insurance, the certificate issued, with copy of agreement between the insurance company and the security company, and the table of graduated mortality ratios for every $1,000 of death loss on each $1,000 of a total indemnity in force of $1,000,000. The following are among the provisions of the certificates:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ellis v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York
... ... 60, 33 S.E ... 385, 45 L.R.A. 621; Hogue v. American Steel ... Foundries, 247 Pa. 12, 92 A. 1073; Hartford Life ... Ins. Co. v. Ibs, 237 U.S. 662, 35 S.Ct. 692, 59 L.Ed ... 1165, L.R.A.1916A, 765; Allen v. Montana Ref. Co., ... 71 Mont. 105, 227 P ... the defendant in Connecticut where it was domiciled. The ... Connecticut court [ Dresser v. Hartford Life Ins ... Co., 80 Conn. 681, 70 A. 39] upheld the company's ... action in connection with the disputed assessment. The ... ...
-
Robertson v. Security Benefit Assn.
...in evidence a Connecticut judgment affirmed by the Supreme Court of Connecticut (domicile of defendant) in Dresser et al. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 80 Conn. 681, 70 Atl. 39. The Dresser case was in equity by Dresser and thirty other certificate holders "for their own benefit and for that o......
-
Robertson v. Security Ben. Ass'n
...by the Supreme Court of Connecticut (domicile of defendant) in Dresser et al. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 80 Conn. 681, 70 A. 39. The Dresser was in equity by Dresser and thirty other certificate holders "for their own benefit and for that of all other similarly situated certificate holders.......
-
Wall v. Bankers' Life Co. of Des Moines
...under like circumstances. Reference is here made to Wright v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Co., supra; Dresser v. Hartford Life Insurance Co., 80 Conn. 681, 70 A. 39;Delaney v. Grand Lodge, A. O. U. W., 244 Mass. 556, 138 N. E. 918. While those authorities do not expressly approve of the......