Fireside Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Martin
Decision Date | 01 June 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 41022,41022 |
Citation | 223 La. 583,66 So.2d 511 |
Parties | FIRESIDE MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. MARTIN et al. |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., Adolph Menuet, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and Cyrus A. Greco, Baton Rouge, for defendants-relators.
Stafford & Pitts, Alexandria, for respondent.
The plaintiff, the Fireside Mutual Life Insurance Company, engaged in the business of selling life, health and accident insurance policies on the assessment or co-operative plan, brings this suit for a declaratory judgment under the provisions of Act 431 of 1948 and of Act 22 of the Extra Session of 1948, LSA-R.S. 13:423, 1 et seq.
The named defendants are:
Wade O. Martin, Jr., Ex-Officio Insurance Commissioner of the State of Louisiana, and
Bolivar E. Kemp, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Louisiana.
This matter comes before us by virtue of a writ of review directed to the Court of Appeal of the First Circuit of the State of Louisiana, pursuant to Article 7, § 11 of the Constitution of the State of Louisiana, 60 So.2d 224.
The case was tried upon a written stipulation and the agreement of the parties dictated in the notes of evidence.
The plaintiff in its petition challenges the legality of the following amendment to the Insurance Code, Act 195 of 1948, LSA-R.S. 22:391:
Plaintiff prays that this provision be declared void because of its irreconcilability with the other provisions of Chapter 10, now a part of Title 22 of the LSA-Revised Statutes, and, in the alternative, it prays that the provision in question be declared unconstitutional because it impairs the obligations of its charter contract had with the State of Louisiana and is, therefore, violative of both the State and Federal Constitutions. Art. IV, § 15, La.Const.; Art. I, § 10, U.S.Const.
There are two divergent views:
1. The district court held that the amendment should not be declared void, because it is clear and free from ambiguity and the legislative intent is self-evident and there is no need for construction.
2. The view of the Court of Appeal is that Chapter 10 of the Insurance Code relating to assessment insurance companies and Chapter 7 relating to industrial insurers both set out requirements that are conflicting and because of this conflict the quoted provision should be declared void; and, it is likewise urged, in the alternative, that the provision is unconstitutional because it impairs the obligation of its charter contract.
In interpreting the provision in question, it should be construed along with the remainder of the statute in connection with all laws on the subject matter. Melancon v. Mizell, 216 La. 711, 44 So.2d 826; Pepsodent Co. v. Krauss Co., 200 La. 959, 9 So.2d 303; Mills v. City of Baton Rouge, 210 La. 830, 28 So.2d 447; Galloway v. Wyatt Metal & Boiler Wks., 189 La. 837, 181 So. 187.
'When a law is clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded, under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.' Article 13, LSA-C.C.
We should tread cautiously in the exercise of power, in the instant case, so as not to usurp any power which has been specifically conferred on any one coordinated and equal branch of government. Article 2, § 1 of the Constitution provides:
'The powers of the government of the State of Louisiana shall be divided into three distinct departments--legislative, executive, and judicial.'
Article 2, § 2 of the Constitution provides:
'No one of these departments, nor any person or collection of persons holding office in one of them, shall exercise power properly belonging to either of the others, except in the instances hereafter expressly directed or permitted.'
Under Article 2, § 2 of the Constitution, we find the following pertinent quotations in the footnotes:
In the recent case of Conley v. City of Shreveport, 216 La. 78, 43 So. 2d 223, 225, we said:
'In the enactment of a statute the Legislature is supreme, except when restricted by constitutional authority. * * *
'It is our duty to interpret the statute as to render it operative and not to cast a doubt on its constitutionality.'
The attacked provision was passed in the exercise of the police power of the State.
Article 19, § 18 of the Constitution provides that
'The exercise of the police power of the State shall never be abridged.'
Board of Barber Examiners of La. v. Parker, 190 La. 214, 182 So. 485; State v. Trahan, 214 La. 100, 36 So.2d 652, Town of Jonesville v. Boyd, 161 La. 278, 108 So. 481; State ex rel. Walker and Valentine Merz. v. Judge, et al., 39 La.Ann. 132, 138, 1 So. 437. Therefore, when the Legislature enacted this provision it was by a power specifically conferred together with a commandment of the Constitution, that such powers so exercised by the Legislature shall not be abridged.
It is true that under Article 5, § 15 of the Constitution, the Governor can exercise veto powers. The Constitution in this Article grants this power to the Executive Department and not the Judicial Department. From the very nature of a public administration, it is likewise true that there may be times when in the interest of the people, the general rule of the Constitution relating to the power of government will not be absolute. The Governor has his part in legislation through his power of veto, and the Senate has a share in executive appointments through the power of confirming them. The Executive Department makes laws in the form of departmental regulations, and the Legislature by controlling appropriations determines many an executive policy. Through the power of determining what are reasonable returns on investments in public utility cases, judges fix gas and railroad rates. But the issue here is in no sense similar to the situation quoted above.
We should take greater notice of the consequences of decisions affecting the separation of the respective departments of government, and there should be a less focusing on the mere words of judges, and, as a court, we should be imbued with an immensity of the spirit of 'what is right, is right'. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Delaune v. Saint Marine Transp. Co.
...see also Landry, 890 F.2d at 773. 68 Matter of Thalheim, 853 F.2d 383, 387 (5th Cir.1988); see Fireside Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Martin, 223 La. 583, 66 So.2d 511, 512 (1953). 69 See, e.g., Dore v. Tugwell, 228 La. 807, 84 So.2d 199, 204 & n. 6 70 The two 1989 cases upholding awards in ......
-
Board of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist. v. Department of Natural Resources
...alienate, surrender or abridge the right to exercise the police power. La.Const. 1974, Art. VI, § 9; Fireside Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Martin, 223 La. 583, 66 So.2d 511 (1953); Baton Rouge Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 156 La. 539, 100 So. 710 (1924); Fernandez v. Alfo......
-
City of New Orleans v. Board of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist.
...v. Department of Natural Resources, 496 So.2d 281 (La.1986); Francis v. Morial, 455 So.2d 1168 (La.1984); Fireside Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Martin, 223 La. 583, 66 So.2d 511 (1953); Fernandez v. Alford, 203 La. 111, 13 So.2d 483 (1943); Porterie v. Walmsley, 183 La. 139, 162 So. 826 (1935); ......
-
Segura v. Frank
...Ins. Co., 369 So.2d 1335, 1338 (La.1979); Seaton v. Kelly, 339 So.2d 731, 733-34 (La.1976). See also Fireside Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Martin, 223 La. 583, 593, 66 So.2d 511, 514 (1953) ("The [93-1271 La. 24] nature of the insurance business is impressed with the public interest, and, theref......