Okla. Benefit Life Ass'n v. Bird
| Decision Date | 16 March 1943 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 31240 |
| Citation | 192 Okla. 288,135 P.2d 994,1943 OK 103 |
| Parties | OKLAHOMA BENEFIT LIFE ASS'N v. BIRD, Dist. Judge, et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. STATES--Certain classes of cases to be prosecuted in name of state only by persons or officers designated by statute.
As a general rule, where the Legislature has declared that certain classes of cases shall be prosecuted in the name of the state by certain persons or officers, such cases may not be maintained by anyone other than the persons or officers so designated.
2. INSURANCE-- Insurance Commissioner solely authorized to maintain actions for appointment of receivers for insurance companies.
The Insurance Commissioner has been designated by the Legislature as the, officer to maintain actions for the appointment of receivers of insurance companies, and policyholders may not maintain such actions. Secs. 22, 23, art. 6, Const.; 36 O. S. 1941 § 76.
3. SAME--Prior to action of Insurance Commissioner in passing on reinsurance contract members of mutual benefit association could not maintain action against association and its officers to restrain consummation of contract and to remove officers.
Prior to the action of the Insurance Commissioner in approving or disapproving a reinsurance contract pursuant to 36 O. S. 1941 §696, entered into between a mutual benefit association and another insurance company, the members of said association may not maintain an action against the association and its officers to restrain the consummation of said contract, and to remove said officers for alleged illegal acts committed in the execution of the contract.
Original action for writ of prohibition instituted by Oklahoma Benefit Life Association, a corporation, and others against Hon. J. W. Bird, Judge of the District Court of Garfield County. Writ granted.
Cheek, Gibson & Savage, of Oklahoma City, for petitioners.
Harry C. Kirkendall, of Enid, for respondent.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. en., and Fred Hansen, Asst. Atty. Gen., amicus curiae.
¶1 This is an original proceeding wherein the petitioners seek a writ of prohibition against the respondent J. W. Bird as judge of the district court of Garfield county, commanding him to renounce jurisdiction and to take no further proceedings in a certain action filed in said court.
¶2 The action in the lower court was instituted by one Rumsey and certain other parties against the petitioners, Oklahoma Benefit Life Association, a corporation, and J. T. Tresner and M. J. Tresner, president and secretary, respectively, of said corporation. The corporation is a mutual benefit association organized and operating pursuant to 36 O. S. 1941 §§ 691-707, and the plaintiffs are holders of benefit certificates therein. Their action against the association and its officers is somewhat similar to the ordinary class suit in equity by stockholders against the directors and officers of a corporation to restrain a breach of trust involving the corporate assets. A mutual benefit association is carried on for the benefit of its members, and they have a voice in its affairs similar to the stockholders in the ordinary commercial corporation. 36 O. S. 1941 §§ 693, 694.
¶3 The petitioners herein say that the relief sought by the plaintiffs in the court below is of the character which under the existing laws may be adjusted only through the offices of the Insurance Commissioner, or may be adjudicated in the courts only at the suit of the commissioner in his official capacity.
¶4 The main purpose of the action in district court was to restrain the present petitioners from consummating a reinsurance contract with Oklahoma Life Insurance Company. The petition charged that the said J. T. Tresner owned the majority stock in said life insurance company; that he was president thereof, and M. J. Tresner was vice president; that the proposed insurance contract would transfer to the insurance company all the assets of the association, and convert the benefit certificates into policies in a company operating on a legal reserve basis, all to the alleged disadvantage and loss of the complainants and others similarly situated. It was further charged that by reason of certain illegal acts on the part of the officers aforesaid the reinsurance contract was authorized without the consent of a majority of the certificate holders. The officers were charged with certain ulterior motives and ultra vires acts in connection with the reinsurance contract designed to injure the certificate holders to the benefit of the officers. The complainants also sought the removal of said officers and the appointment of a trustee or receiver for an audit of the books of the association, and . that the certificate holders be given an opportunity to vote their will in all matters pertaining to association and the election of officers thereof.
¶5 Had the case in district court been an ordinary action by stockholders against the officers of the corporation , the petition may have stated a cause for equitable relief. But, unlike the ordinary business corporation, insurance companies have been placed under the general supervisory control of the Insurance Department of the state, and that department is charged with the execution of all laws in relation to insurance and to insurance companies doing business in the state Section 22, art. 6, Const. And the Insurance Commissioner is the executive head of the Insurance Department. Section 23, art. 6, Const.
¶6 Said section 22, in charging the Insurance Department with the execution of all laws, present and future, relating to insurance companies, contemplates, at least, those laws having for their purpose the regulation of such companies in all matters pertaining to the general operation of their business as affecting the public at large and their policyholders as a body. Aside from existing contractual relation between the company and the individual policyholder, the Insurance Commissioner actually...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 99-CV-104-H(M).
...companies and the need to subject companies to state control for the protection and benefit of the public. Oklahoma Benefit Life Assoc. v. Bird, 192 Okla. 288, 135 P.2d 994 (1943). Perusal of our insurance code, Title 36, Oklahoma Statutes, reveals the extensive government regulation of the......
-
Wooley v. Lucksinger, 2006 CA 1140.
...in nature, subject to state control for the general benefit of not only the policyholders but of the public." Oklahoma Benefit Life Association v. Bird, 1943 OK 103, ¶ 12, 135 P.2d 994, 997. Oklahoma considers the insurance industry to be a unique industry in that, unlike ordinary business ......
-
State ex rel. Crawford v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America
...America v. Welch, 49 Okl. 620, 154 P. 48, 49 (1915).13 36 O.S.1991 § 307 et seq.; § 1803 et seq.14 Oklahoma Benefit Life Association v. Bird, 192 Okl. 288, 135 P.2d 994, 997 (1943).15 Insurance Company of North America v. Welch, supra, note 12, at 50.16 In the Matter of Jonker Corporation, ......
-
Christian v. American Home Assur. Co.
...and the need to subject the companies to state control for the protection and benefit of the public. Oklahoma Benefit Life Ass'n v. Bird, 192 Okl. 288, 135 P.2d 994 (1943). Perusal of our Insurance Code, Title 36, Oklahoma Statutes, reveals the extensive government regulation of the industr......