Magoffin v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association

• Decision Date: 31 October 1902
• Docket Number: 13,079 - (54)
• Parties: SAMUEL M. MAGOFFIN v. MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASSOCIATION
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

91 N.W. 1115

87 Minn. 260

SAMUEL M. MAGOFFIN v. MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASSOCIATION

Nos. 13,079 - (54)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

October 31, 1902

Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover damages for breach of a contract of life insurance executed by defendant, a foreign corporation. The summons and complaint were served upon defendant by delivering copies thereof to the insurance commissioner of Minnesota as provided by Laws 1895, c. 175, and the amendments thereof. Defendant appeared specially and moved to set aside this service on the ground that the appointment and authority of the insurance commissioner to accept the same had been revoked prior to such attempted commencement of the action. From an order Otis, J., denying the motion, defendant appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Foreign Insurance Company -- Service of Process.

The stipulation which a foreign insurance company is required by statute to make and file with the insurance commissioner before doing business in this state, authorizing the service of process in any action against it on such officer, is irrevocable for any cause as to all of its outstanding liabilities growing out of any policies made in this state while the stipulation, or any renewal thereof, was in force.

Cobb & Wheelwright, for appellant.

James E. Trask, for respondent.

OPINION

START C.J.

The defendant, appearing specially for that purpose, moved the district court to set aside the service of the summons herein, and appealed from an order denying its motion.

The record certified to this court, including the complaint, tends to show the following facts: The defendant is a foreign corporation, and engaged in the business of life insurance upon the assessment plan, having its home office and principal place of business in the city of New York. It was engaged in such business in this state from a time prior to December 2, 1885, until June 3, 1901, when its license or authority to transact such business in this state was revoked by the insurance commissioner of the state. It has, however, since such revocation, been collecting premiums due on its policies from residents of this state. On December 2, 1885, it issued and delivered in the due course of its business in this state a policy to the plaintiff, who then was, and ever since has been, a citizen of this state, insuring his life for the sum of $5,000. He accepted the policy, and paid the assessments to the defendant, in accordance with the terms thereof, for more than fifteen years, when, as he alleges in his complaint, the defendant unlawfully, and in violation of the terms of his policy, cancelled it. Thereupon he commenced this action to recover from the defendant damages for its failure to perform on its part the terms of the policy.

Prior to the issuing of such policy the defendant made and filed with the insurance commissioner of the state the stipulation required by the statute (G.S. 1894, §§ 3183 -- 3189) as a condition precedent to its right to do business in this state. The stipulation was renewed the last time on July 25, 1899, in consideration of its having applied and been admitted to transact business in this state. After the revocation of its authority to do business in this state, and before the commencement of this action, the defendant executed an instrument purporting to revoke such stipulation which was duly filed in the office of the insurance commissioner. The provisions of the statute as to the terms of the stipulation at the time the policy was issued were, in effect, that no foreign insurance company shall do any business in this state until it has filed with the insurance commissioner a written stipulation agreeing that any legal process affecting such company served on the insurance commissioner...