McGee v. International Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 12942,12942 |
| Citation | 288 S.W.2d 579 |
| Parties | Lulu B. McGEE, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Mandell & Wright and Herman Wright, Houston, for appellant.
Yancy, Sterrett & Miller and Sam L. Sterrett, Jr., Houston, Hornsby, Kirk & Johnson, and Stanley Hornsby, Austin, for appellee.
This suit was instituted in the District Court of Harris County by appellant, seeking to enforce, by judgment, a default judgment rendered in her favor, and against the appellee by the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the City and County of San Francisco. This case was tried before the court without a jury upon an agreed statement of the facts, at the conclusion of which judgment was rendered in favor of appellee. This action by the court is the basis for appellant's one point of error. Both litigants agree that the sole question to be determined is whether the California court acquired jurisdiction over the person of appellee, within the due process requirement of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, sufficient to render the default judgment sued upon. We are of the opinion that appellant's point is not well taken and must be overruled.
The undisputed material facts are as follows: Appellee, a Texas corporation domiciled in the City of Austin, Texas, on September 1, 1948, entered into an agreement with the Empire Mutual Life Insurance Company of Arizona, an Arizona corporation, in Arizona, to reinsure the policies of insurance issued by the Arizona corporation. Among such policies was one insuring Lowell Stepp Franklin against accidental death. His mother, appellant here, was named beneficiary in the policy. Both the insured and the beneficiary were residents of California. Appellee mailed, from its home office in Austin, a reinsurance certificate to Lowell Stepp Franklin. Thereafter premium notices were mailed by appellee from its home office, to the policyholder in California by United States mail, and premium payments were mailed by the policyholder in California and received by appellee in Texas. The parties have stipulated that neither before nor after September 1, 1948, did Empire Mutual Life Insurance Company of Arizona, or appellee herein maintain an office of any nature whatsoever in the State of California; nor did either of such companies have or maintain an agent or sales personnel in California; nor did either of such companies actually appoint any officer of the State of California as an agent of any nature for service of citation of for any other purpose; nor has either of such companies, or any agents or employees of either company, ever been served, within the State of California, with summons and complaint in any court proceeding. The stipulation is silent as to any business activity within the State of California carried on by either company, except as above set forth. Lowell Stepp Franklin died in California on December 1, 1950. Appellant made claim against appellee for the proceeds of the policy. This claim was refused by appellee for reasons not here material. Appellant instituted suit in the California court, and complied with the provisions of an act of the California Legislature entitled the Unauthorized Insurers Process Act, West's Ann.Ins.Code, § 1610 et seq. After service as provided for in that act, and default on the part of appellee, judgment favorable to appellant was rendered by the California court on October 16, 1951. It is upon that judgment that the present suit is based.
The California 'Unauthorized Insurers Process Act' became effective on the 1st day of October, 1949. The provisions of the act which are material to this litigation are contained in Sections 1610 to 1613, inclusive, and are as follows:
' § 1610. Any of the acts described in Section 1611, when effected in this State, by mail or otherwise, by a foreign or alien insurer which is nonadmitted at the time of the solicitation, insurance or delivery by it of contracts of insurance to residents of, or to corporations authorized to do business in, this State, is equivalent to and shall constitute an appointment by such insurer of the commissioner and his successor or successors in office to be its true and lawful attorney, upon whom may be served all lawful process in any action, suit, or proceeding instituted by or on behalf of an insured or beneficiary arising out of any such contracts of insurance, and any such act shall be signification of its agreement that such service of process is of the same legal force and validity as personal service of process in this State upon such insurer.
' § 1611. The acts referred to in Section 1610 are:
'(1) The issuance or delivery to residents of, or to corporations authorized to do business in, this State of contracts of insurance insuring (a) the lives or persons or residents of this State physically present herein at the time of such issuance or delivery or (b) property or operations located in this State.
'(2) The solicitation of applications for such contracts.
'(3) The collection of premiums, membership fees, assessments or other considerations for such contracts.
'(4) Any other transaction of business arising out of such contracts.
' § 1612. Such service of process may be made by delivering to and leaving with the commissioner or some person in apparent charge of his office two copies thereof. The Commissioner shall forthwith mail by registered mail one of the copies of such process to the defendant at its last known principal place of business, and shall keep a record of all process so served upon him.
No contention is made that appellant did comply with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
...the California judgment holding it void under the Fourteenth Amendment because of lack of valid service. McGee v. International Life Insurance Company, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W.2d 579. In reversing the Texas Court, the United States Supreme Court 'Since Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. ......
-
Beck v. Spindler
... ... 714, 24 L.Ed. 565. 1 The impact of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. [256 Minn. 550] 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 ... And well it should. In McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 ... ...
-
Gee v. International Life Insurance Company
...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 ......
-
Acme Engineers v. Foster Engineering Company
...McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 1957, 355 U.S. 220, 222, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223, reversing McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., Galveston, 1956, 288 S.W.2d 579. 6 Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Moss, Tex.Civ.App., 1919, 213 S.W. 690, 694; Alley v. Bessemer Gas Engi......