Gee v. International Life Insurance Company
| Decision Date | 16 December 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 50,50 |
| Citation | 78 S.Ct. 199,355 U.S. 220,2 L.Ed.2d 223 |
| Parties | Lulu B. McGEE, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Arthur J. Mandell, Houston, Tex., for the petitioner.
Mr. Stanley Hornsby, Austin, for the respondent.
Petitioner, Lulu B. McGee, recovered a judgment in a California state court against respondent, International Life Insurance Company, on a contract of insurance. Respondent was not served with process in California but by registered mail at its principal place of business in Texas. The California court based its jurisdiction on a state statute which subjects foreign corporations to suit in California on insurance contracts with residents of that State even though such corporations cannot be served with process within its borders.1
Unable to collect the judgment in California petitioner went to Texas where she filed suit on the judgment in a Texas court. But the Texas courts refused to enforce her judgment holding it was void under the Fourteenth Amendment because service of process outside California could not give the courts of that State jurisdiction over respondent. 288 S.W.2d 579. Since the case raised important questions, not only to California but to other States which have similar laws, we granted certiorari. 352 U.S. 924, 77 S.Ct. 239, 1 L.Ed.2d 160. It is not controverted that if the California court properly exercised jurisdiction over respondent the Texas courts erred in refusing to give its judgment full faith and credit. 28 U.S.C. § 1738, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738.
The material facts are relatively simple. In 1944, Lowell Franklin, a resident of California, purchased a life insurance policy from the Empire Mutual Insurance Company, an Arizona corporation. In 1948 the respondent agreed with Empire Mutual to assume its insurance obligations. Respondent then mailed a reinsurance certificate to Franklin in California offering to insure him in accordance with the terms of the policy he held with Empire Mutual. He accepted this offer and from that time until his death in 1950 paid premiums by mail from his California home to respondent's Texas office. Petitioner Franklin's mother, was the beneficiary under the policy. She sent proofs of his death to the respondent but it refused to pay claiming that he had committed suicide. It appears that neither Empire Mutual nor respondent has ever had any office or agent in California. And so far as the record before us shows, respondent has never solicited or done any insurance business in California apart from the policy involved here.
Since Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565, this Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment places some limit on the power of state courts to enter binding judgments against persons not served with process within their boundaries. But just where this line of limitation falls has been the subject of prolific controversy, particularly with respect to foreign corporations. In a continuing process of evolution this Court accepted and then abandoned 'consent,' 'doing business,' and 'presence' as the standard for measuring the extent of state judicial power over such corporations. See Henderson, The Position of Foreign Corporations in American Constitutional Law, c. V. More recently in International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, the Court decided that 'due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Id., 326 U.S. at page 316, 66 S.Ct. at page 158.
Looking back over this long history of litigation a trend is clearly discernible toward expanding the permissible scope of state jurisdiction over foreign corporations and other nonresidents. In part this is attributable to the fundamental transformation of our national economy over the years. Today many commercial transactions touch two or more States and may involve parties separated by the full continent. With this increasing nationalization of commerce has come a great increase in the amount of business conducted by mail across state lines. At the same time modern transportation and communication have made it much less burdensome for a party sued to defend himself in a State where he engages in economic activity.
Turning to this case we think it apparent that the Due Process Clause did not preclude the California court from entering a judgment binding on respondent. It is sufficient for purposes of due process that the suit was based on a contract which had substantial connection with that State. Cf. Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 71 L.Ed. 1091; Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. Goodman, 294 U.S. 623, 55 S.Ct. 553, 79 L.Ed. 1097; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 735, 24 L.Ed. 565.2 The contract was delivered in California, the premiums were mailed from there and the insured was a resident of that State when he die...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florence Nightingale School of Nursing, Inc. v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County
...S.Ct. 927, 94 L.Ed. 1154; Perkins v. Benquet Consol. Min. Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485; McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223; Parmelee v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Ass'n, 5 Cir., 206 F.2d 518, 44 A.L.R.2d 410; 5 U.C.L.A.Law Rev. 1......
-
Rice Growers Assn. v. First National Bank
...if as a matter of "commercial actuality," he engages in economic activity within the state. (McGee v. International Life Ins. Co. (1957) 355 U.S. 220, 222-223, 78 S.Ct. 199, 200-201, 2 L.Ed.2d 223.) The defendant conducts economic activity within the state as a matter of "commercial actuali......
-
27001 P'ship v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
...in light of other relevant factors, including the forum State's interest in adjudicating the dispute, see McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223 (1957); the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, see Kulko v. California Superior Court, supra, 436......
-
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
...Co., 254 Ala. 687, 49 So.2d 559. In 1957 the United States Supreme Court handed down its opinion in McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223. This case involved the validity of a California judgment rendered in a proceeding where service was had u......
-
National Personal Jurisdiction
...Fullerton, supra note 24, at 32.121. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 293 (1980); McGee v. Int'l Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 222-23 (1957).122. See supra notes 116-18 and accompanying text. 123. See Casad, supra note 20, at 1600-02 (surveying cases to identify 'fou......
-
This Ain't the Texas Two Step Folks: Disharmony, Confusion, and the Unfair Nature of Personal Jurisdiction Analysis in the Fifth Circuit
...see also Bullion , 895 F.2d at 216. 72 World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980). 73 McGee v. Int’l Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 222–35 (1957). 74 Hanson v. Denckla, 235 U.S. 235, 251 (1958). In contrasting the facts of Hanson with its prior decision in McGee , the Co......
-
Personal Jurisdiction and Choice of Law
...Buffalo, New York, but jurisdictional rules would permit jurisdiction in Buffalo, while not in Newark. 14. McGee v. Int’l Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220 (1957). 15. Id. at 223. 16. It may be true, however, that the Internet has made distant litigation more common, and more problematic, for sma......
-
FORD'S UNDERLYING CONTROVERSY.
...(1988). (65.) See, e.g., Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014); Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919 (2011). (66.) McGee v. Int'l Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 222 (1957); see also Kulko v. Super. Ct., 436 U.S. 84, 101 (1978) (discussing the evolving, flexible standard of International (67.) See, e......