Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0175-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 222
    No. 20077
    No. 20080
    No. 20083
    No. 20088
    The State of Ohio, ex rel. Woodman Accident Co. v. Harry L. Conn, as Superintendent of nIsurance, etc. The State of Ohio, ex rel. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association v. Harry L. Conn, as Superintendent of Insurance, etc. The State of Ohio, ex rel. Central Health Co. v. Harry L. Conn, as Superintendent of Insurance, etc. The State of Ohio, ex rel. The Inter-State Business Men’s Accident Association, of Des. Moines, Iowa, v. Harry L. Conn, as Superintendent of Insurance, etc.
    In Mandamus.
    647. INSURANCE — 1. State may, without discrimination as between foreign and domestic insurance corporations, refuse renewal of license of former for failure to comply with valid law, if such law is not in contravention of State of Federal Constitutions.
    2. Where insurance company takes out license and complies with all provisions of law, except as to not more than 30% of income for management expenses, such provision not applying to domestic corporations, to refuse renewal of license upon this ground is an unreasonable classification in contravention of 14th amendment federal constitution, as between citizens and quasi-citizens.
   DAY, J.

1. The state may properly and without discrimination, as between foreign and domestic insurance companies, regulate the former by requiring that for failure to comply with any valid law governing the conduct of their business in the state, the renewal of a license already granted may be refused; but the power to thus refuse the renewal of such license for a breach of a law can only be properly exercised if such law be not in contravention of some provision of the state or federal constitution.

2. Where an insurance company, not organized under the laws of this state has complied with the conditions precedent to the right to do business in the state, and, having been admitted, has built up an insurance business covering a period of years and is an applicant for a renewal of the certificate to so continue in business, a part of a statute requiring the refusal or revocation of- such certificate unless the expense of management of such company is thirty per cent or less of its income from premiums, assessments and membership fees, with which requirement it is unable to comply and continue business in this state, while domestic insurance companies doing precisely similar business are not limited in expense of management, such statute, as between such companies, one a citizen and the other a quasi citizen of the state, amounts to an unreasonable classification and is in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal constitution. (Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Carr et al., N. S. —, 71 L. Ed., 224, decided November 23, 1926, followed.)

superintendent of insurance has power, when in his judgment it will best promote the public interest, to refuse or revoke a certificate of an insurance company to do business in this state when its expense of management is not properly commensurate with its income from premiums, assessments and membership fees, such refusal or revocation being subject to judicial review.

Writs allowed.

Marshall, CJ., Allen, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.