Flynn v. Physicians Casualty Ass'n of America

Connecticut Superior Court

Flynn v. Physicians Casualty Ass'n of America

131 A.2d 336, 20 Conn. Super. Ct. 240, 20 Conn. Supp. 240, 1957 Conn. Super. LEXIS 50

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 14, 1957

DocketFile 100543

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.2d 336 (Flynn v. Physicians Casualty Ass'n of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flynn v. Physicians Casualty Ass'n of America, 131 A.2d 336, 20 Conn. Super. Ct. 240, 20 Conn. Supp. 240, 1957 Conn. Super. LEXIS 50 (Colo. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Shannon, J.

This is an action for damages on an insurance policy issued to the late John A. Maxwell insuring him against accidental death, which it is alleged occurred on February 22,1956.

Section 2793d of the 1955 Cumulative Supplement to the General Statutes provides that “(a) Any of the following acts in this state, effected by mail or otherwise, by an unauthorized foreign or alien insurer: (1) The issuance or delivery of contracts of insurance to residents of this state ... ; (2) the solicitation of applications for such contracts; (3) the collection of premiums, membership fees, assessments or other considerations for such contracts; or (4) any other transaction of the business of insur *241 anee, is equivalent to and shall constitute an appointment by such insurer of the insurance commissioner and Ms successor or successors in office, to be its true and lawful attorney, npon whom may be served all lawful process in any action, suit or proceeding instituted by or on behalf of an insured or beneficiary arising out of any such contracts of insurance, and any such act shall be signification of its agreement that such service of process is of the same legal force and validity as personal service of process in this state upon such insurer.”

The complaint alleges that the defendant has transacted the business of insurance in this state in that it delivered contracts of insurance to residents of this state, solicited applications for such contracts, collected xnembersMp fees, assessments and other considerations for such contracts and has come into the state to investigate the claim of the plaintiffs as well as other claims. The defendant has pleaded in abatement, alleging that it has done none of these things except by mail from out of the state and has not come into the state to investigate any claims except by wholly independent, uncontrolled investigating agencies. The plaintiffs have demurred to tills plea in abatement.

There have been holdings that tMs ran counter to due process and was an improper effort to regulate the use of the United States mail. However, Judge Medina in Schutt v. Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Assn., 229 F.2d 158 (1956), said, “We think a fair balancing of the inconveniences discloses a situation which is unduly burdensome and in a Mgh degree unjust to the holders of defendant’s policies and that consequently the legislation in question does not run counter to the due process clause of the Constitution. Nor do we find any merit in defendant’s other contention, that the legislation *242 is unconstitutional as an improper attempt to regulate the use of the United States mail.” Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court, 351 U.S. 940 (1956). The court agrees. See also Travelers Health Assn. v. Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission, 339 U.S. 643 (1950; International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

The demurrer is sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Shannon, J.

This is an action for damages on an insurance policy issued to the late John A. Maxwell insuring him against accidental death, which it is alleged occurred on February 22,1956.

Section 2793d of the 1955 Cumulative Supplement to the General Statutes provides that “(a) Any of the following acts in this state, effected by mail or otherwise, by an unauthorized foreign or alien insurer: (1) The issuance or delivery of contracts of insurance to residents of this state ... ; (2) the solicitation of applications for such contracts; (3) the collection of premiums, membership fees, assessments or other considerations for such contracts; or (4) any other transaction of the business of insur *241 anee, is equivalent to and shall constitute an appointment by such insurer of the insurance commissioner and Ms successor or successors in office, to be its true and lawful attorney, npon whom may be served all lawful process in any action, suit or proceeding instituted by or on behalf of an insured or beneficiary arising out of any such contracts of insurance, and any such act shall be signification of its agreement that such service of process is of the same legal force and validity as personal service of process in this state upon such insurer.”

The complaint alleges that the defendant has transacted the business of insurance in this state in that it delivered contracts of insurance to residents of this state, solicited applications for such contracts, collected xnembersMp fees, assessments and other considerations for such contracts and has come into the state to investigate the claim of the plaintiffs as well as other claims. The defendant has pleaded in abatement, alleging that it has done none of these things except by mail from out of the state and has not come into the state to investigate any claims except by wholly independent, uncontrolled investigating agencies. The plaintiffs have demurred to tills plea in abatement.

There have been holdings that tMs ran counter to due process and was an improper effort to regulate the use of the United States mail. However, Judge Medina in Schutt v. Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Assn., 229 F.2d 158 (1956), said, “We think a fair balancing of the inconveniences discloses a situation which is unduly burdensome and in a Mgh degree unjust to the holders of defendant’s policies and that consequently the legislation in question does not run counter to the due process clause of the Constitution. Nor do we find any merit in defendant’s other contention, that the legislation *242 is unconstitutional as an improper attempt to regulate the use of the United States mail.” Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court, 351 U.S. 940 (1956). The court agrees. See also Travelers Health Assn. v. Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission, 339 U.S. 643 (1950; International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

The demurrer is sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.2d 336, 20 Conn. Super. Ct. 240, 20 Conn. Supp. 240, 1957 Conn. Super. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flynn-v-physicians-casualty-assn-of-america-connsuperct-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack