State v. Board of Insurance Com'rs of Fla.

• Decision Date: 12 May 1896
• Citation: 37 Fla. 564,20 So. 772
• Parties: STATE ex rel. HOADLEY et al. v. BOARD OF INSURANCE COM'RS OF FLORIDA.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

20 So. 772

37 Fla. 564

STATE ex rel. HOADLEY et al. v. BOARD OF INSURANCE COM'RS OF FLORIDA.

Florida Supreme Court

May 12, 1896

Mandamus on the relation of Russell H. Hoadley and others, against the board of insurance commissioners. On motion to quash the alternative writ. Overruled.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. Section 2, art. 4, of the constitution of the United States places citizens of each state upon the same footing with citizens of other states so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those states are concerned, and inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other states. It insures to citizens of one state the same freedom possessed by citizens in other states in the acquisition and enjoyment of property and pursuit of happiness, and guaranties to them in other states the equal protection of their laws. The privileges and immunities thus secured to citizens of each state in the several states are those which are common to the citizens in other states under their constitution and laws by virtue of their status as citizens.

2. By the terms and policy of both the revenue act of 1895 and the amendatory acts of that year in reference to insurance companies, found in chapter 4380, unincorporated associations or individuals are authorized to obtain a certificate of authority to engage in the business of insurance in this state upon a compliance with the requirements of said acts.

3. Section 3 of chapter 4380 requires that, before any company association, firm, or individual not of this state shall transact any business of insurance in this state, it or he shall be possessed of at least $150,000 in value, invested in United States or state bonds, or other bankable interest-bearing stock issued in the United States at their market value, and such requirement is not made as to unincorporated associations, firms, or individuals of this state, and to this extent the act is discriminative as to citizens of other states, and of no effect.

COUNSEL E. P. Axtell, for relators.

William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

OPINION

MABRY C.J.

This is an original proceeding by mandamus, instituted on the relation of Russell H. Hoadley and several other persons named, to compel the board of insurance commissioners of this state to reissue to relators, doing business under the associate name of the South & North American Lloyds, of the city of New York, a certificate of authority to transact insurance business in this state until the 1st day of October, 1896.

The alternative writ alleges that the relators are citizens and residents of the state of New York, and had associated themselves together under the name of the South & North American Lloyds, of the city of New York; that said association was formed for the purpose of transacting a general business of fire and marine insurance in the said state of New York and elsewhere in the United States; and that the association was unincorporated, not having a charter under the laws of New York or any other state or foreign power, but was a voluntary association by agreement among relators, and known by the name stated; that relators, as such association, desiring to transact their business of insurance in the state of Florida, on a date in 1895, prior to the 1st of October, applied to the treasurer, comptroller, and attorney general of the state, constituting the board of insurance commissioners, for a certificate of authority to carry on insurance business within the state, and after examining into the affairs of said association, and upon the complying with the laws of the state, the board directed the treasurer to issue to the association a certificate to do business within the state until October 1, 1895, which was done; that on the 1st day of October, 1895, said association paid to the treasurer of the state the sum of $200, and furnished him with the name and address of each agent or solicitor of the association authorized to write insurance in this state, and also paid the sum of $5 for each of said agents or solicitors as required by law, and thereupon the said board directed the treasurer to issue to said association a certificate of authority to transact its business of insurance in the state until the 1st day of October, 1896; that in the month of January, 1896, said association furnished to the treasurer a statement under oath showing certain facts stated, which are in compliance with chapter 4380 of the act of 1895, amending sections 2217, 2218, 2219, 2221, 2222, 2223, and 2224 of the Revised Statutes, except the requirement in section 3 of said act amending section 2219, in reference to the possession on the part of the association of at least $150,000 in value invested in United States or state bonds, or other bankable, interest-bearing stocks issued in the United States, at their market value. The alternative writ also states that the amount of gross receipts of the association in the state of Florida for the year ending December 31, 1895, was $6,680.36, as shown by the statement, and that the association paid to the state treasurer, on the 30th of January, 1896, 1 per cent. of said amount, together with $5 for examining said statement; that the association had outstanding in the state of Florida, on the 31st of December, 1895, 405 policies of insurance, aggregating the amount of $361,385, as shown by the statement, and, during the month of January, the association issued 116 policies of insurance in the state, aggregating the amount of $110,550; that said statement filed with the treasurer did not show that the association had actually invested the amount of $150,000 in value in United States or state bonds, or other bankable or interest-bearing stocks issued in the United States at their market value, as required by section 2 (3), c. 4380, of the Laws of Florida. It is further alleged that on the 4th of February, 1896, the said board of insurance commissioners, after an examination of said statement, filed with the treasurer, revoked the certificate issued to the association, upon the ground that the association did not show an investment of $150,000 in value in the bonds and stocks as required by the said act. The notification of the action of the board in revoking the certificate, addressed to the agent of the association, is made a part of the writ, and this notification states that 'section 3, c. 4380, Laws Fla., amending section 2219, Rev. St., requires all insurance companies, associations, firms, or individuals doing an insurance business in this state to be possessed of an amount of bonds of the United States, or other bankable, interest-bearing stocks issued in the United States. Your company or association, not showing such bonds or stocks, does not comply with the law; and the insurance commissioners have this day revoked your certificate of authority, in accordance with the requirements of the statute.' The date of this notification is February 4, 1896. It is further alleged that section 2 (3), c. 4380, Laws Fla., requiring relators to have invested the amount of $150,000 in the bonds and stocks, as stated, is unconstitutional and invalid, because it imposes upon them, as citizens of another state, restrictions and burdens that are not cast upon citizens of this state engaging in a like business, and that the reason assigned by the board of insurance commissioners for revoking the certificate of authority to said association to do business in this state is insufficient to warrant such action; that said association is entitled to have said certificate reissued, and also to continue to transact business of insurance in this state; and that relators have applied to said board to have said certificate of authority reissued, but that it had declined to direct the treasurer to issue the same.

The respondents move to quash the writ, because it does not show that relators are entitled to the relief prayed, nor that the board of commissioners has unlawfully refused to issue a certificate of authority to said association to do business in this state.

The business of relators is that of fire and marine insurance and the question presented is whether the provision in section 3, c. 4380, Acts 1895, that 'no insurance company, association, firm or individual, not of this state, nor agent, nor representative thereof, shall transact any business of insurance in this state, unless such company, association, firm or individual is possessed of at least one hundred and fifty thousand dollars in value invested in United States or state bonds, or other bankable, interest-bearing stock issued in the United States, at their market value,' is, as applied to relators, in conflict with the provision of the constitution of the United States that 'the...