Palmetto Fire Ins. Co. v. Conn

• Decision Date: 19 October 1925
• Docket Number: No. 384.,384.
• Citation: 9 F.2d 202
• Parties: PALMETTO FIRE INS. CO. v. CONN, Superintendent of Insurance of Ohio.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

9 F.2d 202 (1925)

PALMETTO FIRE INS. CO. v. CONN, Superintendent of Insurance of Ohio.

No. 384.

District Court, S. D. Ohio, E. D.

October 19, 1925.

S. B. Randall, of Columbus, Ohio, and Cabell, Ignatius & Lown, of New York City, for plaintiff.

C. C. Crabbe, Atty. Gen., and C. S. Younger, of Celina, Ohio, for defendant.

Before DONAHUE, Circuit Judge, and WESTENHAVER and HOUGH, District Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The Palmetto Fire Insurance Company is an insurance corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of South Carolina. The defendant, Harry L. Conn, is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting superintendent of insurance of the state of Ohio, and a citizen and resident of the state of Ohio. It is averred in the petition that the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interests and costs, the sum or value of $3,000.

In 1924 the plaintiff applied for admission to the state of Ohio, and for the right to do the business of reinsurance in the state, and was granted such right, and duly licensed by the superintendent of insurance of Ohio. The plaintiff brings this action to enjoin the defendant, as insurance commissioner of Ohio, from revoking the license of the plaintiff to do an insurance business in Ohio, and also from in any wise interfering with the operation and carrying out of a certain contract between the plaintiff and the Chrysler Sales Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Michigan. Before the day set for the hearing of the motion for a temporary injunction by the court as now constituted, the defendant filed his answer, and by consent of counsel this cause was finally submitted upon its merits.

It further appears from the bill of complaint that on the 16th day of June, 1925, complainant, who was then duly authorized to do business in the state of Michigan, entered into what is called "an open contract of insurance" with the Chrysler Company, which was later modified by a rider attached thereto, and in which it was expressly provided that the rider should supersede and take the place of anything to the contrary in the original contract; that under the terms of the original and supplemental contract the plaintiff agreed to issue certificates of insurance to purchasers of Chrysler cars, wherever sold, the loss, if any, payable to the purchaser of such car if the purchase price had been paid in full, or, if not, then to the dealer or finance company financing the same, the excess thereof to be paid by the dealer or finance company to the owner. It further appears that this open contract of insurance does not purport to cover any particular specific property, and does not touch or cover any property until the car is actually sold by the dealer to his customer. The Chrysler Company, however, collects from its dealers in the several states, whenever the car is delivered to such dealer, the amount of premium contracted to be paid for such insurance, and the dealer in turn collects a like amount from the purchaser of the car as a part of the purchase price thereof. The sale is then reported, and a certificate of insurance is issued to the purchaser. The Chrysler Company is required to make monthly statements of the sales made by its dealers, and remit to the plaintiff the contract amount of the premiums on all sales made in the prior month.

On June 30, 1925, the defendant notified the Chrysler Company by letter that it would be required to comply with the laws of Ohio in reference to insurance, if its plan included in its contemplation Chrysler cars sold in Ohio. On the 30th day of July, 1925, the plaintiff submitted to the defendant a copy of this contract and supplemental contract, designated as "an open...