University Overland Express, Inc. v. Alsop

• Decision Date: 01 December 1936
• Citation: 189 A. 458,122 Conn. 275
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: UNIVERSITY OVERLAND EXPRESS, Inc., v. ALSOP et al., Public Utilities Commission.

189 A. 458

122 Conn. 275

UNIVERSITY OVERLAND EXPRESS, Inc., v. ALSOP et al., Public Utilities Commission.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 1, 1936

Rehearing Denied Feb. 3, 1937.

Case Reserved from Superior Court, Hartford County; John Rufus Booth, Judge.

Appeal by the University Overland Express, Incorporated, from an order and decision of J. W. Alsop and others, the Public Utilities Commission, denying plaintiff's application for a permit to engage in the transportation of property in Connecticut as an interstate motor carrier, brought to the superior court and reserved for the advice of the Supreme Court of Errors.

Order in accordance with opinion.

Martin E. Gormley, of New Haven, and Horace P. Moulton, of Boston Mass., for plaintiff.

Charles J. McLaughlin, Deputy Atty. Gen., (Edward J. Daly Atty. Gen., on the brief), for defendants.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, BANKS, AVERY, and BROWN, JJ.

HINMAN, Judge.

The plaintiff is a Massachusetts corporation which is, and has been since prior to June 1, 1935, engaged in the transportation of automobiles by motor vehicle for hire. In the course of its business it operates its motor vehicles over the highways of Connecticut, which operation it is agreed is wholly interstate in character. On August 17, 1935 the plaintiff made application to the public utilities commission of Connecticut to engage in the transportation of property by motor vehicle for hire over the highways of this state as an interstate carrier, as required by General Statutes, Conn.Supp. 1935, §§ 592c and 593c. On December 12, 1935, the defendants promulgated an order establishing minimum requirements as to insurance which must be carried by holders of permits to transport property for hire by motor vehicle except in special cases where adequate financial responsibility is shown, this order being known and referred to as Docket 6253. It provided that each holder of such a permit " shall carry insurance in a company licensed to do an insurance business in the State of Connecticut which insurance shall indemnify the insured against any legal liability for personal injury, the death of any person, or property damage, which injury, death or damage may result from or have been caused by the use or operation of any motor vehicle operated by the assured, its agents or employees, for the transportation of property for hire." The amount of insurance which each permit holder is required to carry against liability for personal injury or death of one person in one accident shall be not less than $10,000; for personal injury or death of more than one person in one accident, not less than $20,000; and against claims for damage to property, not less than $5,000. " The Commission upon suitable application in special cases where adequate financial responsibility is shown may permit a carrier to be a self-insurer under such conditions as the Commission may in each case prescribe."

On December 13, 1935, the defendants held a public hearing upon the plaintiff's application, at which the plaintiff offered evidence of insurance by a Massachusetts corporation duly licensed to do business in Massachusetts but not licensed by the insurance commissioner of Connecticut to do an insurance business in this state, although it had appointed an agent in Connecticut solely for the purpose of the service of process within the state. On January 20, 1936, the defendants denied this application unless and until the plaintiff gives evidence of insurance of the nature prescribed in Docket 6253 in an insurance company licensed by the insurance commissioner of Connecticut to do business within the state, and the plaintiff thereupon brought this appeal.

On August 8, 1935, Congress enacted the Motor Carrier Act, 1935. It was approved by the President on August 9th, became effective as to all sections here material on October 1, 1935, and the whole act is now effective. 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 301-327. Section 302, entitled " Declaration of policy and delegation of jurisdiction," provides: " (a) It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to regulate transportation by motor carriers in such manner as to recognize and preserve the inherent advantages of, and foster sound economic conditions in, such transportation and among such carriers in the public interest; promote adequate, economical, and efficient service by motor carriers, and reasonable charges therefor, without unjust discriminations, undue preferences or advantages, and unfair or destructive competitive practices; improve the relations between, and coordinate transportation by and regulation of, motor carriers and other carriers; develop and preserve a highway transportation system properly adapted to the needs of the commerce of the United States and of the national defense; and cooperate with the several States and the duly authorized officials thereof and with any organization of motor carriers in the administration and enforcement of this chapter. (b) The provisions of this chapter apply to the transportation of passengers or property by motor carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce and to the procurement of and the provision of facilities for such transportation, and the regulation of such transportation, and of the procurement thereof, and the provision of facilities therefor, is hereby vested in the Interstate Commerce Commission. (c) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed *** to interfere with the exclusive exercise by each State of the power of regulation of intrastate commerce by motor carriers on the highways thereof."

The term " common carrier by motor vehicle" is defined in section 303 (a) (14) to mean " any person who or which undertakes *** to transport passengers or property *** for the general public in interstate or foreign commerce by motor vehicle for compensation." And " contract carrier by motor vehicle" (15) to mean " any person, not included under paragraph (14) of this section, who or which, under special and individual contracts or agreements *** transports passengers or property in interstate or foreign commerce by motor vehicle for compensation." Section 306 (a) provides that no common carrier by motor vehicle shall engage in interstate or foreign commerce " on any public highway *** unless there is in force with respect to such carrier a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Commission" ; it being also provided that those carriers in business June 1, 1935, shall be granted certificates for the operation then being conducted, and section 309 (a) requires contract carriers by motor vehicle to obtain permits issued by the commission before engaging in interstate commerce.

Section 315, entitled " Security for protection of public," provides: " No certificate or permit shall be issued to a motor carrier or remain in force, unless such carrier complies with such reasonable rules and regulations as the Commission shall prescribe governing the filing and approval of surety bonds, policies of insurance, qualifications as a self-insurer or other securities or agreements, in such reasonable amount as the Commission may require, conditioned to pay, within the amount of such surety bonds, policies of insurance, qualifications as a self-insurer or other securities or agreements, any final judgment recovered against such motor carrier for bodily injuries to or the death of any person resulting from the negligent operation, maintenance, or use of motor vehicles under such certificate or permit, or for loss or damage to property of others. The Commission may, in its discretion and under such rules and regulations as it shall prescribe, require any such common carrier to file a surety bond, policies of insurance, qualifications as a self-insurer, or other securities or agreements, in a sum to be determined by the Commission, to be conditioned upon such carrier making compensation to shippers and/or consignees for all property belong[ing] to shippers and/or consignees, and coming into the possession of such carrier in connection with its transportation service."

The plaintiff is subject to the provisions of this Motor Carrier Act, and subsequent to the hearing before the defendants made application to the Interstate Commerce Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a common carrier or a permit to operate as a contract carrier, has complied with all the requirements of the act, and its continued operation in Connecticut in interstate commerce is lawful under the provisions of that act.

The stipulation of facts for the purposes of the reservation (filed May 29, 1936) stated, in addition to the foregoing, that the Interstate Commerce Commission had not then promulgated rules and regulations with respect to insurance under the authority of section 315 of the Motor Carrier Act; but upon the hearing in this court an amendment was filed stipulating that the commission " has promulgated rules and regulations under section 215 [49 U.S.C.A. § 315] *** covering the subject of insurance requirements of interstate motor carriers which are in all respects material to this case substantially the same as those contained in Docket 6253."

Four questions are propounded by the reservation. An affirmative answer to any one of the first three (a, b, and c), or a negative answer to the fourth (d), would be decisive against the ground upon which the defendants denied the application-failure to give evidence of insurance in a company licensed by the insurance commissioner to do business in this state, as prescribed by Docket 6253. Question (b) reads as follows: " Does the enactment by Congress of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, supersede and render inoperative the power and...