John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Lieb

• Decision Date: 27 April 1933
• Docket Number: No. 202.,202.
• Citation: 165 A. 720
• Parties: JOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. LIEB et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

165 A. 720

JOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO.

v. LIEB et al.

No. 202.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

April 27, 1933.

Employer's notice' of withdrawal stated that in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Law employees were notified of employer's withdrawal, effective February 1, 1930, of its acceptance of the obligations imposed by the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Michael Lieb and another, claimants, for injuries opposed by the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, employer. To review an award in favor of claimants, employer brings certiorari.

Writ dismissed.

Argued January term, 1933, before PARKER, LLOYD, and HEHER, JJ.

Perkins, Drewen & Nugent, of Jersey City, for prosecutor.

Rosario S. Mazzola, of Bayonne, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This writ of certiorari brings up an award in favor of a petitioner in a workmen's compensation case, the prosecutor being the employer. The only question for determination is the sufficiency of a notice served by the prosecutor on its employees, including the respondent Lieb, for the purpose of putting an end to its liability under section (or division) 2 of the compensation act entitled "Elective Compensation" (Comp. St. Supp. § **236—7 et seq.).

The petitioner had been employed by the prosecutor as an outside insurance agent collecting his premiums in the usual manner. This employment had been on the basis of a tacit acceptance of the provisions of section 2 as provided by the statute. However, late in November, 1929, the company concluded that it would discontinue its responsibility under section 2 and undertook to serve the notice provided by statute in such case. The statute in paragraph 9 provides that every contract of hiring shall be presumed to be made under section 2 "and unless there be as a part of such contract an express statement in writing, prior to any accident, either in the contract itself or by written notice from either party to the other, that the provisions of section two of this act are not intended to apply, then it shall be presumed that the parties have accepted the provisions of section two of this act and have agreed to be bound thereby." Supp. Comp. St. 1924, page 3871, § **236—9.

Paragraph 10 (Comp. St. Supp. § **236—10) provides as follows: "The contract for the operation of the provisions of section II of this act may be terminated by either party upon sixty days' notice in writing prior to any accident."

Now the notice given by the company reads as follows:

"Workmen's Compensation Act "Notice to Employees.

"In accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Law of the State of New Jersey, you are hereby notified of this Company's withdrawal, effective February 1, 1930, of its acceptance of the obligations imposed by the said Workmen's Compensation Act.

"John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, "November 19, 1929. 8365

"Michael J. Lieb.

[Signature of Employee.] "Pate Nov. 20, 1929.

"This copy to be signed, dated and returned."

It will be observed that the foregoing notice undertakes to effect the withdrawal of the company, not only from the obligations imposed by section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (elective...