Tri-State Cas. Co. v. Speer
| Decision Date | 24 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 30011 |
| Citation | 189 Okla. 191,115 P.2d 130,1941 OK 229 |
| Parties | TRI-STATE CASUALTY CO. v. SPEER et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION--Insurance statutory provision that no policy of compensation insurance shall be canceled until notice filed with Industrial Commission is mandatory.
Section 13377, O. S. 1931, 85 O.S.A. § 64, providing that no policy of insurance issued under the Workmen's Compensation Act shall be canceled until notice of the intention to cancel shall be filed in the office of the State Industrial Commission, is mandatory, and must be strictly complied with in order to effect such cancellation in so far as the rights of employees and the jurisdiction of the commission are concerned.
2. SAME--Award proper against two insurance companies where both had policies on file with Industrial Commission and neither had filed notice of cancellation at date of injury.
Where an employer, having on file with the State Industrial Commission an insurance policy With one company, takes out a policy with another company, which is also filed with the commission, an award to an injured employee against both insurance companies is proper, notwithstanding an alleged cancellation of the first policy prior to the date of injury, by agreement between the employer and the insurance company; where no notice of cancellation is filed required by section 13377, O. S. 1931, 85 O.S.A. § 64.
3. SAME--Industrial Commission an administrative body exercising quasijudicial powers.
The State Industrial Commission is an administrative body exercising quasi-judicial powers in connection with the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Original proceeding in the Supreme Court by the Tri-State Casualty Company to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of Lesley Speer. Award sustained.
Butler & Rinehart, of Oklahoma City, for petitioner.
Wade Pipkin, of Seminole, Sandlin & Balch, of Holdenville, and James C. Cheek and Alex Cheek, both of Oklahoma City, for respondents.
¶1 The sole question presented is whether the State Industrial Commission was justified in refusing to recognize and give effect to an alleged private agreement for the cancellation of one of two policies of insurance covering the game employer, where the claimant was injured after the effective date of such alleged agreement, but before cancellation notice had been filed with the Industrial Commission as required by section 13377 (e), O. S. 1931, 85 O.S.A. § 64 (e).
¶2 From the record it appears that the employer, Pete Parks, doing business as Independent Tank Company, had for some time prior to June 1, 1940, carried an insurance policy issued by Tri-State Casualty Company, covering accidental injuries to his employees, which was duly filed with the Industrial Commission. In May 1940, he took out another policy with Employers Casualty Company, which was also duly filed with the commission. Both policies insured against the same risk. In the latter part of May 1940, Parks requested the cancellation of the Tri-State policy. The evidence as to when an agreement to cancel was reached, and when the cancellation was to take effect, is conflicting, and we express no opinion thereon, but will assume, as contended by Tri-State, that the effective date of cancellation was June 1, 1940. Speer received a compensable injury on June 3, 1940. On June 6, 1940, Tri-State filed with the commission its notice of cancellation. Under section 13377, such cancellation was effective on June 16, 1940. The Industrial Commission held that the Tri-State policy was in effect on the date of Speer's injury, made an award to Speer, and directed payment thereof by Parks and both insurance companies.
¶3 Tri-State does not question the correctness of prior decisions of this court holding compliance with the cancellation provision of section 13377 mandatory. See Maryland Casualty Co. v. Johnson, 134 Okla. 174, 272 P. 833; Farmers' Gin Co. v. Jones, 146 Okla. 79, 293 P. 527; Rasberry v. R. O. Knost & Sons, 146 Okla. 186, 293 P. 778. It contends that the purpose of the statute being, as stated in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Johnson, supra, to provide a period within which the commission and employer might see that new insurance was provided in place of the canceled policy, such provision should not be enforced where other insurance is in effect on the effective date of cancellation agreed upon by the employer and the canceling company. We are not impressed by the contention.
¶4 The State Industrial Commission is an administrative tribunal with limited jurisdiction, , its primary purpose being to speedily adjust settlements...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cowles v. State Ins. Fund
... ... Maryland Casualty Co. v. Johnson, 134 Okl. 174, 272 ... P. 833; Tri-State Casualty Co. v. Speer, 189 Okl. 191, 115 ... P.2d 130 ... Idaho ... has adopted the ... ...
-
White v. Great American Insurance Co. of New York
...the first, the two policies are each enforceable by third parties. Lewis Machine Co. v. Aztec Lines, Inc., supra; Tri-State Casualty Co. v. Speer, 189 Okl. 191, 115 P.2d 130. This rule applies to require notice of a termination based on failure to renew a policy. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. ......
-
Pine v. Davis
...of limited jurisdiction is too well settled to require any extensive citation of authority. See, however, Tri-State Casualty Co. v. Speers, 189 Okla. 191, 115 P. 2d 130; Sartin v. Moran-Buckner Co., 189 Okla. 178, 114 P. 2d 938; Parkhill Truck Co. v. Emery, 166 Okla. 280, 27 P. 2d 333; O'Ma......
-
Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Harris
...force and in sufficient time to enable him to protect himself and his workmen by procuring insurance. See, also, Tri-State Casualty Co. v. Speer, 189 Okl. 191, 115 P.2d 130, 131; Farmers Gin, Co. of Manitou v. Jones, 146 Okl. 79, 293, P. In the instant case even if employer had requested ca......