Opinion of Justices to Senate

• Decision Date: 27 March 1930
• Citation: 271 Mass. 582
• Parties: OPINION OF THE JUSTICES TO THE SENATE. (Opinions of the Justices.)
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

271 Mass. 582

OPINION OF THE JUSTICES TO THE SENATE. (Opinions of the Justices.)

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

March 27, 1930

In response to an order of the Senate respecting an initiative petition for a proposed law covering nine printed pages and entitled "An Act to create a Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund for the Purpose of Providing

Compensation for Injuries and Deaths due to Motor Vehicle Accidents," the Justices answered as follows:

(1) The "description of the proposed law" did not fulfill the requirements of the pertinent provisions of art. 48 of the Amendments to the Constitution in several important particulars;

(2) A citizen of the Commonwealth constitutionally may not be required to make the contribution to the proposed fund as provided in said proposed law and be held to the terms of the contract as therein provided, as a condition precedent to the right to operate a motor vehicle on the ways of the Commonwealth, as defined in G.L.c. 90,

Section 1; (3) The business of motor vehicle liability insurance is not such a public function or so subject to public regulation as to authorize the creation of a monopoly, such as is provided in said proposed law, and to require insurance therein as a condition precedent to the right to operate motor vehicles on such ways;

(4) It is not constitutional to require the registrant of a motor vehicle as a condition precedent to the right to operate a motor vehicle on such ways, to forego his present right to contract for insurance in a company of his own choice and to require him to contract for the same in a "fund" as constituted in said proposed law;

(5) It would not be constitutional to deny to a person wishing to register a motor vehicle for use on the highways the option, given him by the law in force on April 15, 1930, of making a deposit of money or securities, of filing a bond, or of providing an insurance policy, whether of a stock company or of a mutual company from among some sixty or more insurance companies authorized to do business in the

Commonwealth; (6) It would not be constitutional to require a person, as a condition precedent to the right to operate a motor vehicle on such ways, to buy insurance of a concern whose only assets at the time the first contribution was accepted and the contract of insurance made would be the contribution received and the anticipation of other contributions, such assets being subject to a liability already incurred by loan necessitated for organization purposes, as provided by said proposed law:

(7) It would not be constitutional to require the registrant of a motor vehicle to purchase insurance in such a quasi-public corporation as would be established by said proposed law, which would be without the usual reserves and other safeguards required by law of insurance companies, in the absence of any guaranty of the solvency of such corporation by the Commonwealth;

(8) The proposed law, if enacted, would unreasonably create a monopoly and thereby violate the constitutional rights of companies now engaged in insuring under the present system of compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance;

(9) It would not be constitutional to subject the policy holders, in a mutual company organized under the laws of Massachusetts, to losses incident to the creation of a monopoly such as is established by said proposed law.

(10) The official machinery set up in said proposed law would not be subject to the requirements of art. 66 of the Amendments to the

Constitution relative to the organization of the executive and administrative work of the Commonwealth;

(11) It appeared that an amendment of G.L.c. 90, Section 26, proposed in the act, in substance that the operator of every motor vehicle or trailer involved in an accident in which any person is killed or injured shall make reports there specified, disclosed nothing violative of the fundamental law;

(12) Provisions of Sections 29A, 33A and 34A, proposed by the act to be added to G.L.c. 90, contemplated an unconstitutional use of public funds and would be unconstitutional.

On March 27, 1930 the Senate adopted the following order:

WHEREAS, A document purporting to be an initiative petition for a proposed law under Article forty-eight of the Amendments to the

Constitution, in the form shown by the petition blank, copy of which is submitted herewith, has been transmitted to the Clerk of the House of

Representatives by the Secretary of the Commonwealth; and

WHEREAS, Said document and said proposed law (printed as House, No.

202, a copy of which is submitted herewith) have been referred for consideration to the joint committee on Insurance of the two branches of the General Court; and

WHEREAS, There is pending before the General Court, and likewise referred to said joint committee, the report of the special commission to study compulsory motor vehicle insurance and related matters, printed as Senate No. 280, a copy of which is likewise submitted herewith, in which certain important questions of constitutionality and other questions of law are suggested in connection with said document and said proposed law; and

WHEREAS, Grave doubt exists as to whether said Article forty-eight has been so far complied with that said document properly constitutes an initiative petition and therefore whether said proposed law is legally

"introduced and pending" before the General Court so that the procedure required by said Article forty-eight in relation to measures proposed by initiative petitions should be followed; and WHEREAS, Grave doubt further exists as to the constitutionality of the provisions of said proposed law, if enacted, therefore be it

ORDERED, That the opinions of the Honorable the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court be required by the Senate on the following questions of law, which do not appear to have been raised before, or passed upon by, the Court: --

1. Does the "description of the proposed law" (as it appears on the petition blanks, copy of which is submitted herewith and as reprinted on pages 130 and 131 of said Senate, No. 280) required by said Article forty-eight to be printed at the top of each signature blank and also upon the ballot, meet the requirements of said Article forty-eight and adequately inform the voters as to the provisions of said proposed law, especially as to the differences between said provisions and the present system of compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance?

2. May a citizen of the Commonwealth be constitutionally required to make the contribution to the proposed fund as provided in said proposed law and be held to the terms of the contract as therein provided, as a condition precedent to the right to operate a motor vehicle on the ways of the Commonwealth, as defined in section one of chapter ninety of the General Laws?

3. Is the business of motor vehicle liability insurance such a public function or so subject to public regulation as to authorize the creation of a monopoly, such as is provided in said proposed law, and to require insurance therein as a condition precedent to the right to operate motor vehicles on such ways?

4. Is it constitutional to require the registrant of a motor vehicle, as a condition precedent of the right to operate a motor vehicle on such ways, to forego his present right to contract for insurance in a company of his own choice and to require him to contract for the same in a "fund" as constituted in said proposed law?

5. Under the present law, a person wishing to register a car for use on the highways has the option of making a deposit of money or securities, of filing a bond, or of providing an insurance policy, whether of a stock company or of a mutual company, from among some sixty or more insurance companies authorized to do business in the Commonwealth.

Would it be constitutional to deny him this option? 6. Would it be constitutional to require a person, as a condition precedent of the right to operate a motor vehicle on such ways, to buy insurance of a concern whose only assets at the time the first contribution was accepted and the contract of insurance made would be the contribution received and the anticipation of other contributions, such assets being subject to a liability already incurred by loan necessitated for organization purposes, as provided by said proposed law?

7. Is it constitutional to require the registrant of a motor vehicle to purchase insurance in such a quasi-public corporation as is established by said proposed law, which is without the usual reserves and other safeguards required by law of insurance companies, in the absence of any guaranty of the solvency of such corporation by the Commonwealth?

8. Is the official machinery set up in said proposed law subject to the requirements of Article sixty-six of the Amendments to the

Constitution, relative to the organization of the executive and administrative work of the Commonwealth?

9. If so subject, does said machinery conform to such requirements as affected by the existing organization of the executive and administrative work of the Commonwealth?

10. Do the provisions of said proposed law, especially those contained in proposed sections twenty-six, twenty-nine A, thirty-three A and thirty-four A of chapter ninety of the General Laws, contemplate the unconstitutional use of public funds for a purpose not public?

11. If a motor vehicle owner who is registered under the provisions of said proposed law is also insured against personal liability by a private insurance company of his own choice, would said provisions or any of them constitute an unconstitutional interference with his right to defend himself against such liability or the right of said insurance company to conduct such...