Duel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1942 |
| Citation | 240 Wis. 161,2 N.W.2d 871 |
| Parties | DUEL, Com'r of Insurance v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeals from orders of the Circuit Court for Dane County; Arold F. Murphy, Judge.
On motion for rehearing.
Motion denied.
For former opinion, see 1 N.W.2d 887. Ekern, Meyers & Matthias, of Chicago, Ill., and Rieser & Mathys, of Madison (R. M. Rieser, of Madison, Frank T. Boesel, of Milwaukee, Herbert H. Naujoks, of Chicago, Ill., and James J. Kerwin, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for appellant.
John E. Martin, Atty. Gen., and N. S. Boardman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Upon motion for rehearing. A careful review of the matters brought to our attention upon defendant's motion for rehearing has failed to convince us that there should be any change or modification of the views expressed in the original opinion. We think that a detailed discussion of these matters would not be profitable. Appellant, however, presents certain constitutional contentions not previously argued, and we address ourselves briefly to these points.
Defendant contends that the decision of this court, as well as the order of the insurance commissioner giving rise to this litigation, deny to defendant rights guaranteed to it by the United States Constitution. More specifically, it is said (a) that a state, under the guise of regulation, may not deny *188Bto an insurance corporation the power to enter into a contract requiring its members to pay costs incurred by the corporation prior to, or as an incident to the completion of the insurance contract; (b) the state may not require inclusion of membership fees in any reserve for insurance liability or protection when by the express terms of the insurance contract this item is independent of the insurance premium, is not repayable in whole or in part, and is collected to reimburse the company for expenses incurred by it in the execution of the contract. It is further contended that by the holding of this court in sustaining these powers defendant's constitutional rights are violated (1) because it imposes an arbitrary and unreasonable interference with the right of contract in violation of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; (2) because it impairs the obligation of contracts in violation of article I, Section 10, Constitution of the United States.
Reduced to its lowest terms, the contentions deny the power of a state (1) to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co v. Duel
...1, 1941. Litigation followed which resulted in the decision of Duel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 240 Wis. 161, 1 N.W.2d 887, 2 N.W.2d 871. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held as a matter of law that the membership fees were part of appellant's premiums and that 50 per cent of them......
-
Chicago, M., St. P. & P. Ry. Co. v. Public Service Commission
...act merely and has not the force of the judgment of a court. Duel v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 240 Wis. 161, 1 N.W.2d 887, 2 N.W.2d 871; State ex rel. Schleck v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 254 Wis. 42, 35 N.W.2d 312. Its ruling relates only to the facts and conditions presented upo......
- Duel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
-
State By and Through Earle v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...charged to premium have been held to be 'gross premium.' Duel v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 1941, 240 Wis. 161, 1 N.W.2d 887, 2 N.W.2d 871; State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Louisiana Insurance Rating Commission, La.App.1955, 79 So.2d 888. Another case involving State Farm ......