In re Minneapolis Mut. Fire Ins.

51 N.W. 921, 49 Minn. 291, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 170
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedApril 8, 1892
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 51 N.W. 921 (In re Minneapolis Mut. Fire Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Minneapolis Mut. Fire Ins., 51 N.W. 921, 49 Minn. 291, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 170 (Mich. 1892).

Opinion

Diceinson, J.

The above-named corporation was organized under Laws 1881, ch. 91, entitled “An act authorizing the formation of millers’ and manufacturers’ mutual insurance companies.” After the passage of the statute authorizing such corporations having a specified amount of capital to “assume risks on the all-cash plan,” (Laws 1885, eh. 180,) the corporation conducted its business of insurance on both the “mutual” and the “all-cash” plans, so called. Its by-laws contemplated this, and contained provisions respecting insurance both by “participating or mutual policies” and “nonparticipating or cash policies.” In distinct terms, which need not be here recited, they declared that all persons holding policies issued on the [296]*296“premium note or participating plan” should become members of the corporation, entitled to all its benefits, and liable for all its losses and expenses to the extent of their premium notes; and that the holders of “nonparticipating” policies should pay their premiums in cash, should not be members of the corporation, and should not be entitled to share in its profits, nor liable for its losses, expenses, or debts. The policies issued for mutual insurance, where premium notes were given by the insured as part of the consideration for the insurance, were different in their forms and provisions from those issued where the entire premium was paid in cash. The policies of the latter kind were in the usual form of policies issued by stock insurance companies. They provided for the repayment of unearned premiums on the usual conditions, and contained none of the distinctive features of mutual insurance; while the former stated that the holders of such policies became members of the corporation, and contained various provisions relating to the right of such policy holders to share in the profits of the company, and to their liability for losses and expenses.

In 1890, in an action against the corporation, prosecuted in accordance with the provisions of 1878 G. S. ch. 76, the corporation was adjudged to be insolvent, a receiver was appointed, its assets sequestered, and it was enjoined from the further prosecution of its business. This appellant Powell acquired .by assignment the claims of several holders of “all-cash” policies against the corporation for premiums unearned at the time when by these sequestration proceedings the contracts of insurance were terminated. His claim for the repayment of the unearned premiums was disallowed by the receiver. On appeal to the district court, it being considered that the holders of such policies became members of the corporation, it was ■decided that, while the claims should be allowed, their payment should be postponed until all claims for losses and expenses had been fully paid, and that they should not be paid out of the proceeds of assessments made upon the premium notes of the members. The claimant then appealed to this court.

By the insolvency and sequestration proceedings all outstanding policies were in effect canceled,—Taylor v. North Star Mut. Ins. Co., [297]*29746 Minn. 198, (48 N. W. Rep. 772,)—and the policy holders whose rights passed by assignment to the appellant became creditors of the corporation to the extent of the unearned premiums. It may be conceded that, if the holder of an “all-cash” policy is to be deemed to have been a member of the corporation, entitled to participate in its management and to share in its profits, his claim as a creditor should be postponed to the just demands of those not standing in any such relation. But if his relations with the corporation were only those of one merely contracting with it for insurance, then his right to the repayment of the unearned premium is not inferior to the rights of other creditors.

It should be admitted that the mere fact that the law or the charter of a mutual insurance company permits insurance to be effected on the basis of a payment of the full consideration or premium therefor in cash when the policy is issued does not alone determine that the transaction is not one of mutual insurance, or that the insured does not thereby become a member of the corporation. Doubtless a mutual insurance company may be authorized to receive the full premium in cash, and no contingent liability will rest thereafter on the assured, and yet the transaction be in all essential particulars one of mutual insurance. But we are to consider what was the nature and effect of a contract of insurance under the statutes above cited, and as evidenced by a policy in the ordinary form of a contract of insurance, not containing any of the features peculiar to mutual insurance, and for which' the whole premium was paid in cash.

The act of 1881 (section one [1]) authorized a specified number of persons, being actual residents of this.state, engaged in the business of milling or manufacturing therein, and owning property of a specified amount, to form themselves into a corporation for the purpose of insuring, “upon the plan of mutual insurance,” mills, manufac-tories, elevators, and the contents and products thereof.

Section twelve (12) of this law provides that “every person insured by such corporations shall pay at the time of receiving his policy such sum in money, and give .his premium note for such further sum, as may be required; and every person effecting insurance in [298]*298any company organized under this act * * * shall thereby become members of such corporation during the period of insurance, and shall be bound to pay for losses and such necessary expenses as may accrue in the .management of such company, in proportion to the amount of such premium note.”

By the law of 1885,- above referred to, it .was enacted that whenever the capital of any company organized under the act of 1881 should amount to $200,000, of which -not less than $40,000 should be actual funds, “such company may assume risks on the all-cash plan,'and issue policies against loss or damage by fire or lightning on any property, real or personal, to an amount not exceeding five per centum of its capital.”

The construction of this latter act, which seems to be most in accordance with the apparent intention of the legislature, is that it permitted such mutual insurance companies to enter into contracts of insurance to the- extent specified, based upon their accumulated capital, and into which-contracts the peculiar features of mutual insurance, as specified in the prior law, need not enter.

■ Perhaps the corporation might make contracts of insurance on the all-cash plan in such terms that the assured would become members of the corporation, entitled to share in its profits and participate in its management. We only consider at present that it was permitted to make contracts of insurance, just as ordinary stock companies usually do.

The act-of 1885,' which was not in terms an amendatory law, was not intended merely to so modify the terms of the prior act as to provide that in the transactions of mutual insurance by corporations organized under that prior law the entire premium might be paid at once in cash, in place of the combined cash and premium note system, specified in the earlier statute. If the act of 1885 did authorize this,, it certainly went further. It contains important provisions, having no natural or reasonable relation to such a purpose, but which in ordinary and unqualified terms seem to confer upon such mutual insurance companies the right to enter into ordinary contracts of insurance in the manner in which such contracts are usually made.

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

Related

Johnson v. School District No. 1
273 P. 386 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1928)
Michel v. Southern Insurance
8 Teiss. 24 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1910)
State ex rel. Schaefer v. Minnesota Title Insurance & Trust Co.
116 N.W. 944 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1908)
Geraghty v. Washtenaw Mutual Fire-Insurance
108 N.W. 1102 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1906)
Parsons, Rich & Co. v. Lane
106 N.W. 485 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1906)
Swing v. Humbird
101 N.W. 938 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1904)
Regener v. Phillips
26 Misc. 311 (New York Supreme Court, 1899)
Warner v. Delbridge & Cameron Co.
34 L.R.A. 701 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1896)
Smith v. National Credit Insurance
68 N.W. 28 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 N.W. 921, 49 Minn. 291, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-minneapolis-mut-fire-ins-minn-1892.