State v. Revelle

• Decision Date: 02 April 1914
• Docket Number: No. 17,793.,17,793.
• Citation: 257 Mo. 529,165 S.W. 1084
• Parties: STATE ex rel. INTER-INSURANCE AUXILIARY CO. v. REVELLE, Superintendent of Insurance.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

165 S.W. 1084

257 Mo. 529

STATE ex rel. INTER-INSURANCE AUXILIARY CO. v. REVELLE, Superintendent of Insurance.

No. 17,793.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April 2, 1914.

Rehearing Denied April 13, 1914.

1. STATUTES (§ 80) — CLASS LEGISLATION — DISCRIMINATION.

While the Legislature has power to regulate insurance contracts, whether entered into by individuals, associations, or corporations, it may not discriminate in making such regulations between individuals composing a class of natural persons engaged in the insurance business, or between the members of a class of corporate insurers.

2. INSURANCE (§ 124) — NATURE AND ELEMENTS OF CONTRACT.

The essential elements of a contract of insurance are an agreement, oral or written, whereby for a legal consideration the promisor undertakes to indemnify the promisee if he shall suffer a specified loss.

3. STATUTES (§ 109)—TITLES AND SUBJECTS OF ACTS.

Const. art. 4, § 28, providing that no bill, except certain appropriation bills, shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, though mandatory, is liberally construed, and will not annul an act, all of whose provisions radiate from a single subject and are within its just scope and reasonable application, where the subject is pointed out by a title not designed to mislead the members of the Legislature or the people, but containing a fair forecast of the contents of the bill.

4. STATUTES (§ 116) — TITLES AND SUBJECTS OF ACTS—"DEFINITION."

Laws 1911, p. 301, entitled "an act defining certain classes of indemnity contracts, prescribing regulations therefor, and fixing a license fee," and providing that the making of contracts between individuals, firms, or corporations providing indemnity among each other from casualty or other contingency, or from fire loss or other damage, shall not constitute the business of insurance, and shall not be subject to the laws relating to insurance, and further providing for the filing of a declaration, stating certain facts, with the superintendent of insurance and for the procuring from the superintendent of a certificate of authority to do business, violates Const. art. 4, § 28, requiring the subject of a bill to be expressed in its title, since it does not define indemnity contracts, a "definition" being a statement, in other words, of the meaning of certain terms or language, but merely exempts from the application of the insurance laws contracts which but for such statute would be within their provisions.

5. STATUTES (§ 75)—SPECIAL LAWS—CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

Laws 1911, p. 301, providing that the making of contracts between individuals, firms, or corporations providing indemnity among each other from casualty or other contingency, or fire loss or other damage, shall not constitute the business of insurance and shall not be subject to the laws relating to insurance, violates Const. art. 4, § 53, prohibiting special laws on various subjects, paragraph 33 of which provides that the General Assembly shall not indirectly enact such a special law by the partial repeal of a general law, since that act is a special law, the benefits of which are restricted to associations made up of individuals, firms, or corporations, making the forms of insurance contracts therein described.

Lamm, C. J., and Brown and Woodson, JJ., dissenting in part.

In Banc. Original mandamus proceeding by the State, on relation of the Inter-Insurance Auxiliary Company, as agent or attorney in fact for the Merchants' Reciprocal Underwriters, against Charles G. Revelle, Superintendent of Insurance. Writ quashed.

The relator prayed an alternative writ of mandamus to compel the Superintendent of Insurance to issue to its principal a certificate to do inter-insurance business in this state, claim it was so authorized by compliance with the terms of the act of 1911 (Laws, p. 301). The act in question is, to wit:

"(H. B. 277.)

"Insurance: Inter-Indemnity Contracts.

"An act defining certain classes of indemnity contracts, prescribing regulations therefor, and fixing a license fee.

Section.

1. Contracts for indemnity shall not constitute insurance business.

2. Declaration shall be filed, where, shall contain what.

3. Agent to procure certificate of authority, fee, etc.

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

"Section 1. Contracts for indemnity shall not constitute insurance business.—The making of contracts between individuals, firms or corporations providing indemnity among each other from casualty or other contingency, or from fire loss or other damage to their property, shall not constitute the business of insurance, and shall not be subject to the laws of this state relating to insurance.

"Sec. 2. Declaration shall be filed, where, shall contain what.—The attorney, agent or other representative acting for such individuals, firms or corporations, shall file with the Superintendent of Insurance of this state, a declaration in writing, verified by the oath of such attorney, agent or other representative, setting forth: (a) The name or title of the office through which such individuals, firms or corporations exchange such contracts. (b) A copy of the form of contract under or by which such indemnity is to be effected. (c) The location of the office or offices through which such contracts are to be issued. (d) That service or process may be had upon the Superintendent of Insurance in this state in all suits arising out of such contracts.

"Sec. 3. Agent to procure certificate of authority, fee, etc.—Every attorney, agent or other representative through whom are issued or negotiated any contracts for indemnity of the character referred to in this act, shall procure from the Superintendent of Insurance annually a certificate of authority, stating that all the requirements of this act which are applicable, have been complied with; and upon such compliance, and the payment of a fee of $2.00, the Superintendent of Insurance shall issue such certificate.

"Approved March 9, 1911."

This court ordered the writ. Thereupon the respondent waived its issuance and filed his return to the petition of relator refusing to issue the license or certificate: First, for that relator, being a corporation, could not legally be the agent of its alleged principal, nor could be lawfully incorporated for that purpose; second, that relator had not complied with certain rules established by the insurance department for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of its proposed business and its good faith in conducting the same, and that relator had assumed a name so similar to that of the previous association as to be deceptive and confusing; third, that the act of the Legislature, supra, is unconstitutional. To these returns relator filed a reply. Whereupon the case was submitted, after oral argument in this court, upon the pleadings and exhibits and the following admitted facts: "First. That the Inter-Insurance Auxiliary Company is incorporated for the following purposes: to inspect insurance risks of whatever nature or character; to protect property from loss before or after damage by covering, guarding, removal, storage or otherwise; to adjust and settle losses or claims for loss or damage; to furnish office facilities and experienced clerical and other employés to individuals, insurance, inter-insurance or inter-indemnity and other companies and associations; to act as agent, manager, or other representatives for inter-insurance or inter-indemnity exchanges or associations and for the persons, firms and corporations composing the same; and generally to do any and all things incident and necessary to the carrying out of the above purposes. Secondly, That on July 22, 1913, the date of the filing of relator's application for a license, the following inter-insurance associations or reciprocal exchanges had been licensed by the Superintendent of Insurance, viz.:" Here follows a list of the names of a number of associations so licensed.

William J. Jones, of St. Louis, for relator. John T. Barker, Atty. Gen., and Ernest A. Green, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BOND, J. (after stating the facts as above)

I. The pivotal point on this appeal is whether the act of the Legislature supra, relied on by the relator as the authority for the conduct of the business in which its principal seeks to engage without being amenable to the insurance laws of this state regulating that business, is a constitutional enactment. We think it is not. The power of the Legislature to regulate insurance contracts, whether entered into by individuals, associations, or corporations, is not an open question either on precedent or principle. R. S. 1909, §§ 7041, 7003; section 7008, amended in 1911 by Session Acts, p. 271; Rev. St. 1909, § 7099, amended by Acts 1911, p. 283.

The root of this control lies in the paramount power of the state to regulate its internal affairs for the protection and well-being of its citizens, and, to that end, to impose salutary and equal conditions or burdens on any trade and calling, the prosecution of which affects the public wellfare. In the exercise of this power, however, the state must make the same regulations as to all the members of any particular class,...