Perlman v. Great States Life Ins. Co., 21896
| Decision Date | 15 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 21896,21896 |
| Citation | 436 P.2d 124,164 Colo. 493 |
| Parties | Howard M. PERLMAN and Intercontinental Enterprises, Inc., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiffs in Error, v. GREAT STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Winner, Berge, Martin & Camfield, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Ireland, Stapleton, Pryor & Holmes, D. Monte Pascoe, Ronald S. Luedemann, Denver, for defendant in error.
The sole question on this writ of error is--whether personal service of process in Colorado on the President of Great States Life Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, on November 13, 1964 is valid? After a hearing on affidavits and counter-affidavits the trial court quashed the service dismissed the complaint as to Great States and entered a ruling under R.C.P. Colo. 54(b) that there was no just reason for delay in the entry of a final judgment.
Whether the judgment should be sustained admittedly depends upon the sufficiency of the Colorado contacts of the defendant in error.
Pertinent facts disclosed by the record are:
(1) Great States, a foreign corporation, is a non-admitted reinsurer in Colorado and has designated our Commissioner of Insurance as its agent under C.R.S. 1963, 72--2--10 for service of process 'in any action arising out of or in connection with such reinsurance';
(2) Great States' president, Clarence Kleckner, when served, was in Denver solely to attend a meeting of the board of directors of Life Assurance Company of the West, a stock controlled Colorado company of Great States with interlocking directors and officers;
(3) Great States has entered into reinsurance treaties with two Colorado companies;
(4) Great States had loaned a substantial sum to its Colorado subsidiary;
(5) Great States purchases the services of its subsidiary's underwriting department, and does its reinsurance business here in that manner;
(6) Plaintiff in error, Perlman, has a written employment contract with Life Assurance Company of the West which he contends has been breached by it and on which he seeks damages against it;
(7) Perlman also uses his employment contract, together with two later letter agreements between L. W. Nimmo and himself, as the basis for his claim against Great States. The letters had to do with certain stock purchase arrangements between individuals and neither insurance company was a party thereto. As to these instruments Perlman contends that Great States refuses to transfer to him certain stock given him by Nimmo and seeks to compel such a transfer. He further seeks damages against Nimmo for the latter's alleged breach of the mentioned agreement. And,
(8) 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 37--1--26 provides that any person who engages in '(t)he transaction of any business within this state * * *' is subject to the jurisdiction of the Colorado courts.
The only apparent conflict in the opposing affidavits is that Perlman alleges that as executive officer of the Illinois company (while also serving as President of the Colorado subsidiary) he '* * * performed various * * * duties as such officer from Colorado * * *' whereas Kleckner's affidavit denies that assertion. The trial court resolved that issue in favor of Great States and we have been shown no reason to disturb its conclusion. See Bolger v. Dial-A-Style Leasing Corp., 159 Colo. 44, 409 P.2d 517 (1966); 20 C.J.S. Corporations § 1920 c.
Turning next to the above recited Colorado contacts, we must conclude that neither severally nor jointly do they establish that minimal status necessary to give our courts jurisdiction over Great States. For example, a non-admitted reinsurer allowing service of process on the Colorado Commissioner of Insurance in connection with Reinsurance certainly does not allow service under these facts. Neither does stock ownership in a domestic company nor common directors, establish that Great States was doing business in Colorado. The rule applicable to the latter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. Glen and Helen Aircraft, Inc., 77-1009
...P.2d 468 (1973), which affirms People in the Interest of D.R.B., 30 Colo.App. 603, 498 P.2d 1166 (1972); Perlman v. Great States Life Insurance Co., 164 Colo. 493, 436 P.2d 124 (1968); D.E.B. Adjustment Co. v. Dillard, 32 Colo.App. 184, 508 P.2d 420 (1973). Therefore we affirm the judgment ......
-
Hicks v. Londre
... ... Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Englewood, 28 Colo.App ... (quoting Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 982 P.2d 310, 315 ... United States, 86 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir.1996)) ... ...
-
E. R. Callender Printing Co. Inc. v. Dist. Court In and For Second Judicial Dist.
...v. Dist. Ct., 175 Colo. 482, 488 P.2d 562; Safari Outfitters Inc. v. Superior Ct., 167 Colo. 456, 448 P.2d 783; Perlman v. Great States, 164 Colo. 493, 436 P.2d 124; Vandermee v. Dist. Ct., 164 Colo. 117, 433 P.2d 335; Knight v. Dist. Court, 162 Colo. 14, 424 P.2d 110; White-Rodgers Co. v. ......
-
People ex rel. Jeffers v. Gibson
...Court, 175 Colo. 482, 488 P.2d 562; Safari Outfitters, Inc. v. Superior Court, 167 Colo. 456, 448 P.2d 783; Perlman v. Great States Life Insurance Co., 164 Colo. 493, 436 P.2d 124; Vandermee v. District Court, 164 Colo. 117, 433 P.2d 335; Knight v. District Court, 162 Colo. 14, 424 P.2d 110......
-
Long Arm Jurisdiction in Colorado
...Colo. ___, 532 P.2d 725 (1975). 17. White-Rodgers Co. v. District Court, supra note 6. 18. Perlman v. Great States Life Insurance Co., 164 Colo. 493, 436 P.2d 124 (1968). 19. Id.; Callendar Printing Co. Inc. v. District Court, supra note 16. 20. Perlman v. Great States Life Insurance Co., s......