Insurance Exchange Surplus

37 Pa. D. & C. 63
CourtPennsylvania Department of Justice
DecidedJanuary 6, 1940
StatusPublished

This text of 37 Pa. D. & C. 63 (Insurance Exchange Surplus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Department of Justice primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Insurance Exchange Surplus, 37 Pa. D. & C. 63 (Pa. 1940).

Opinion

Brown, Deputy Attorney General,

On July 25, 1939, you inquired concerning the Act of June 24,1939, P. L. 683, requesting an opinion as to how your department shall calculate the surplus required of an inter-insurance exchange or reciprocal, in order to permit it under that act to write a nonassessable policy where the exchange in question is writing both fire and casualty coverages. Other questions are suggested by this inquiry.

The Act of 1939, supra, amends section 1004(d) of The Insurance Company Law of May 17,1921, P. L. 682, and reads as follows:

“A copy of the form of power of attorney, or other authority of such attorney, under which such insurance [65]*65is to be effected or exchanged, and which shall provide that the liability of the subscribers, exchanging contracts of indemnity, shall make provision for contingent liability, equal to not less than one additional annual premium or deposit charged: Provided, however, That where an exchange has a surplus equal to the minimum capital and surplus required of a stock insurance company transacting the same kind or kinds of business, its power of attorney need not provide for such contingent liability of subscribers, and such exchange, so long as it maintains such surplus, may issue to its subscribers policies or contracts without contingent liability.”

As your letter of July 25, 1939, points out, reciprocals or inter-insurance exchanges in Pennsylvania are authorized to write all classes of insurance except life insurance. That is, they may do the classes of business covered by section 202, subsecs. (6) and (c) of The Insurance Company Law of 1921, supra. Subsection (6) covers lines of business in which fire insurance companies engage and subsection (c) those in which casualty companies engage.

According to annual reports and examination reports on record in your office, while all reciprocals have, generally speaking, a similar line of business, there is some variance in what coverage they offer. But, as indicated, their coverage is in both the fire and casualty field.

Financial requirements for Pennsylvania stock fire and casualty companies are set out in section 206. The requirements for foreign stock fire and casualty insurance companies are set out in sections 516 and 601, respectively.

We feel, in view of the fact that the language of amended section 1004 does not designate whether the reciprocal, if a foreign reciprocal, must meet the requirements of section 206, or of sections 516 and 601, the intention of the legislature is that the reciprocal, whether foreign or domestic, must meet the require[66]*66ments Pennsylvania companies are required to meet, namely, the requirements under section 206.

To calculate the amount required for each reciprocal, therefore, it will be necessary for you to determine from the examination reports and annual reports the classes of business which such reciprocal is transacting and to total the amounts of capital which both a Pennsylvania fire insurance company and a Pennsylvania casualty insurance company, doing the same lines of business that the particular reciprocal is transacting, would be required to have.

The lines usually written by a reciprocal are set out in section 202, pars. B(1) and (2), and C(3), (4), and (11). Applying section 206 to such schedule, it will be seen that a reciprocal may engage in the indicated fire insurance lines if it has a surplus of $300,000, and the usual lines of the casualty insurance if it has a surplus of $300,000, or a total of $600,000. On the basis of added classes of insurance engaged in by a reciprocal, these figures would be increased.

As is quite clear by the terms of section 1004, this must be a surplus, and the surplus of a reciprocal can be determined only by first deducting all reserves and all other liabilities.

It is understood, of course, that the annual statements and examination reports on file in your office for any reciprocal should reflect the assets of that fund, the beneficiaries of which are the subscribers, and that there has never come into such fund the compensation (which is a fixed percentage of each premium or deposit) which the attorney-in-fact for the subscribers receives.

It is upon the above basis that you have already approved nonassessable policies now being written by Consolidated Underwriters and the State Automobile Insurance Association of Indianapolis, two reciprocals admitted into this Commonwealth whose surpluses exceed the requirements.

[67]*67We desire, also, to pass upon several other situations which arise because of this amendment. One question which has been raised is whether or not a nonassessable policy written by a reciprocal or inter-insurance exchange would become assessable under any circumstances. The suggestion is made that, because amended section 1004 provides that the reciprocal maintain the required surplus, should the reciprocal fail in this, the policy may become assessable.

This suggestion is, of course, not well founded because the legislature could never have intended that a policy which is nonassessable could or would, under any circumstances during the life of such policy, change to or become an assessable policy.

To find otherwise would be unreasonable and absurd. Section 52 of the Statutory Construction Act of May 28, 1937, P. L. 1019, provides:

“In ascertaining the intention of the Legislature in the enactment of a law, the courts may be guided by the following presumptions among others:
“(1) That the Legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.”

Additionally, we would be ascribing to the legislature an intention to pass a law which would impair the obligation of contracts if we were to hold that the legislature, by the 1939 amendment, ever intended to authorize a reciprocal to write nonassessable policies which, in the lifetime of such policies, would become assessable.

Article I, sec. 17, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania provides:

“No ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, or making irrevocable any grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed.” (Italics supplied.)

That is, an insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and the assured and the rights and liabilities thereunder are established for the term thereof. An intention cannot be ascribed to the legislature which would [68]*68create a situation whereby this constitutional provision would be violated.

Article I, sec. 10, of the Constitution of the United States prohibits States from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts. The first paragraph of such section reads as follows:

“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but' gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” (Italics supplied.)

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 Pa. D. & C. 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/insurance-exchange-surplus-padeptjust-1940.