Ware v. Travelers Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 29 June 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 10881.,10881. |
Citation | 150 F.2d 463 |
Parties | WARE v. TRAVELERS INS. CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Ezra R. Whitla, E. T. Knudson and Whitla & Knudson, all of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, for appellant.
C. H. Potts and Wm. S. Hawkins, both of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho (Francis W. Cole, Hugh Harbison and Maxwell M. Merritt, all of Hartford, Conn., of counsel), for appellees.
Before GARRECHT, HEALY, and BONE, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from a judgment of dismissal directed to a complaint filed by Eugene H. Ware. Pending the appeal Ware died and his executrix was substituted in his stead.
In summary, the complaint alleged that Ware is a licensed insurance agent residing in Kootenai County, Idaho, and is the duly appointed resident agent of the defendants (appellees). The latter are Connecticut corporations authorized to write liability insurance in Idaho. By the terms of his contract with the defendants Ware was to receive a percentage of the premiums paid on insurance contracts secured by or through him. On workmen's compensation and employers' liability policies his commission was fixed at 10% of the premiums collected, except that he was to be compensated on a special commission basis in certain instances.
In May 1942 the defendants wrote a workmen's compensation and employers' liability policy and comprehensive general liability and automobile liability policies for the Walter Butler Company, to cover the operations of that company in the building of the Farragut Naval Station in Kootenai County, Idaho. Later the defendants wrote similar policies for the same company to cover its operations in connection with another project in Kootenai County. These policies were written by the defendants "direct with the Walter Butler Company" and were countersigned by Ware as resident agent. The latter countersigned, also, a bond or bonds connected with the transactions. The object of the suit is to recover from the defendants a percentage of the premiums earned and collected on these policies on the basis of what is referred to as the "resident agent statute," Section 40-902, Idaho Code Annotated, Ch. 61, Idaho Session Laws 1939, Code Supp.1940, § 40-902. This statute reads:
It is not claimed that Ware procured the policies described, it being alleged merely that they were written directly by the companies, and "that the plaintiff acted as countersigning agent direct and not through any licensed broker." It sufficiently appears, therefore, that the policies were negotiated and procured outside the state of Idaho and without the intervention of a broker.
The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In ruling on the motion the court stated that it "is of the opinion that the statute upon which this action is based is repugnant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and is also an unconstitutional restriction on interstate commerce, and it is therefore ordered that the motion be and the same is hereby sustained."
The court, we think, was in error. The validity of similar statutes has been upheld in the recent cases of Osborn v. Ozlin, 310 U.S. 53, 60 S.Ct. 758, 84 L.Ed. 1074, and Holmes v. Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 311 U.S. 606, 61 S.Ct. 19, 85 L. Ed. 384. In the Osborn case a statute of Virginia provided that, with specified exceptions, insurance companies authorized to do business in the state shall not make contracts of insurance on persons or property therein except through regularly constituted resident agents, which agents "shall be entitled to and shall receive the usual and customary commissions allowed on such comtracts" 310 U.S. 53, 60 S.Ct. 760 and may not share more than half thereof with a non-resident broker. The requirement was held to be well within the power of the state over insurance against local risks.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Barnett
... ... Ben. Soc. v ... Garrison, D.C., 58 F.Supp. 972; Keehn v. Hi-Grade Coal ... & Fuel Co., 23 N.J.Misc. 102, 41 A.2d 525; Ware v ... Travelers Ins. Co., 9 Cir., 150 F.2d 463; Mendola v ... Dineen, 185 Misc. 540, 57 N.Y.S.2d 219; Prudential ... Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, ... ...
-
State v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, Newark, N.J.
... ... F.Supp. 972, decided Jan. 16, 1945; Keehn v. Hi-Grade Coal ... & Fuel Co., 41 A.2d 525, 23 N.J.Misc. 102, decided Feb ... 20, 1945; Ware" v. Travelers Ins. Co., 9 Cir., 150 ... F.2d 463, decided June 29, 1945; Mendola v. Dineen, ... 185 Misc. 540, 57 N.Y.S.2d 219 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Refoule v. Ellis
...rules of pleading a complainant is not to be turned away unless on the facts pleaded he is entitled to no relief." Ware v. Travelers Ins. Co., 9 Cir., 150 F.2d 463, 465. If the pleading be considered as a motion for summary judgment, it can not be sustained because directed solely to the ef......
-
King Edward Employees FCU v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...Leimer v. State Mutual Benefit Assur. Co., 8 Cir., 108 F.2d 302; Carroll v. Morrison Hotel Corp., 7 Cir., 149 F.2d 404; Ware v. Travelers Ins. Co., 9 Cir., 150 F.2d 463; Dollar v. Land, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 28, 154 F. 2d 307; Frederick Hart & Co., Inc., v. Recordograph Corp., 3 Cir., 169 F.2d 58......