State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Duel

• Citation: 244 Wis. 429,12 N.W.2d 696
• Parties: STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. v. DUEL, Commissioner of Insurance (two cases).
• Decision Date: 14 March 1944
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

244 Wis. 429

12 N.W.2d 696

STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.

v.DUEL, Commissioner of Insurance (two cases).

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 18, 1944.

Rehearing Denied March 14, 1944.

Appeals from judgment of the Circuit Court for Dane County; August C. Hoppmann, Judge.

Affirmed.

Actions in equity by the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company against Morvin Duel, Commissioner of Insurance for the state of Wisconsin. From summary judgments dismissing the complaints, the plaintiff appeals. The controlling facts are stated in the opinion.

See, also, 343 Wis. 172, 9 N.W. 593.

Robert M. Rieser, of Madison, and Herbert H. Naujoks and E. A. Meyers, both of Chicago, Ill. (Ekern, Meyers & Matthias, of Chicago, Ill., and Rieser & Mathys, of Madison, of counsel), for appellant.

John E. Martin, Atty. Gen., James Ward Rector, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Harold H. Persons, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

FOWLER, Justice.

The plaintiff insurance company brought actions to enjoin the defendant insurance commissioner from interfering with the plaintiff in conducting an automobile insurance business in Wisconsin under its plan of conducting such business in the state and as incidental relief asked that the court require the defendant to issue to it a license to conduct such business. One action involves a license for the year 1942. A like action involves the year 1943. The defendant interposed answers and upon the pleadings and certain affidavits in support thereof moved for a summary judgment dismissing the complaints. Affidavits were filed by the plaintiff in opposition. The court granted judgments of dismissal.

These cases are sequels to a case between the same parties reported in 240 Wis. 161 et seq., 1 N.W.2d 887,2 N.W.2d 871. In that case the instant defendant was plaintiff and the suit was brought ‘to enforce orders of the plaintiff * * * declining to renew defendant's license to conduct the insurance business in the state of Wisconsin for license periods' there involved. See 240 Wis. at page 165, 1 N.W.2d at page 889. The gist of that controversy may be stated as follows: The company was doing business in face of the commissioner's refusal to renew its license. The company claimed it was entitled to a renewal and had submitted an application therefor that showed it to be so entitled and the commissioner wrongfully refused to grant it. The commissioner refused to grant the renewal on the ground that the company had not set up the reserve required by sec. 201.18(1), Wis.Stats., in that it had not included in such reserve fifty per cent of the premiums received from its policyholders because it omitted therefrom fifty per cent of the membership fees received from them, which fees the commissioner contended were a part of the company's premiums. We held as matter of law that the membership fees were a part of the company's premiums and fifty per cent of them must be included in the reserve required by the statute above cited. On motion for rehearing interposed by the company that holding was adhered to.

The company was then and is now doing business in many states. In states other than Wisconsin it continues to exact the membership fees which we held in the former case are part of its premiums. Upon conclusion of the former case the company adopted a new scheme for doing business in Wisconsin and submitted it to the commissioner in applications for licenses for the years 1942 and 1943. The scheme is to require no membership fees from its Wisconsin policyholders but to do business in Wisconsin on a level premium basis, while continuing to exact membership fees in other states. The premiums required to be paid in Wisconsin are twenty-seven per cent higher than the premiums required in the other states that construe premiums as not including membership fees. This twenty-seven per cent. difference represents the difference between the premiums here and elsewhere as the word ‘premium’ is construed here and elsewhere. The commissioner refuses to grant the defendant the licenses required on the same ground that it refused renewal of the licenses applied for in the former case, viz: the reserve of the company required by sec. 201.18(1) does not include fifty per cent. of the premiums received in other states as it does not include fifty per cent of the membership fees required in other states.

The commissioner also asserts as ground for denying the company a license that the company unlawfully exacted membership fees from its Wisconsin policyholders prior to the former decision of this court, and he may require of the company a refund of the fees wrongfully exacted as a...