Title: State ex rel. Mortg. Guar. Ins. Corp. v. Langdon

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

State ex rel. Mortg. Guar. Ins. Corp. v. Langdon1983 WY 116671 P.2d 811Case Number: 83-16, 83-17Case Number: 83-16, 83-17Decided: 11/07/1983Supreme Court of Wyoming
STATE OF WYOMING EX 
REL. MORTGAGE GUARANTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, APPELLANT (PETITIONER), VEREX 
ASSURANCE, INC. (INTERVENOR),

v.

JOHN T. LANGDON, AS 
COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE FOR THE STATE OF WYOMING, AND WYOMING INSURANCE 
DEPARTMENT, APPELLEES (RESPONDENTS).

VEREX ASSURANCE, 
INC., APPELLANT (INTERVENOR),

v.

JOHN T. LANGDON, AS 
COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE FOR THE STATE OF WYOMING, AND THE WYOMING INSURANCE 
DEPARTMENT, APPELLEES (RESPONDENTS).

Appeal from the 
District Court.

Paul B. 
Godfrey and George E. Powers, Jr., of Godfrey & Sundahl, Cheyenne, for appellant Mortgage Guaranty Ins., 
Inc.

Nick 
Kalokathis of Lathrop & Uchner, P.C., Cheyenne, for appellant Verex Assurance, 
Inc.

A.G. 
McClintock, Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., and John W. 
Renneisen, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., for 
appellees.

Before THOMAS, ROSE, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ., and 
GUTHRIE, J., Retired.

PER 
CURIAM.

[¶1.]      The substantive 
issue sought to be presented by the appellants in these cases is whether a writ 
of mandamus should issue to compel the Commissioner of Insurance for the State 
of Wyoming and the Wyoming Insurance Department to hold a hearing with respect 
to issues which developed in a regulatory matter involving the appellants. The 
proceedings were being conducted following a remand of those proceedings by this 
court to the district court with instructions that they be remanded to the 
Commissioner of Insurance for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion 
of this court in Mortgage Guaranty 
Insurance Corporation v. Langdon, Wyo., 634 P.2d 509 (1981). The district 
court denied the Petition for Writ of Mandamus after finding that the duty of 
the Commissioner of Insurance to hold a hearing following the remand of the 
proceedings "is not clear, certain, or beyond reasonable argument" and that the 
petitioners (appellants before this court) "have an adequate remedy at law." We 
shall dismiss the appeals because they are moot.

[¶2.]      Between the date 
of filing of the appellants' briefs and the date of filing of the appellees' 
brief, the Wyoming State Legislature adopted a bill which bore the title, 
"Competitive Rating Act." Ch. 186, S.L. of Wyoming 1983. The bill became law 
without the Governor's signature on March 10, 1983, and specifically provided 
for an effective date of July 1, 1983. The thrust of the statute was to provide 
for a presumption of competitive markets with respect to insurance coverage, and 
to limit the authority of the Commissioner of Insurance to rate regulation in 
what is defined as the noncompetitive market. The parties are in accord that the 
insurance coverage provided by the policies involved in the present dispute is 
offered in a competitive market and no longer is subject to regulation by the 
Commissioner of Insurance.

[¶3.]      By a supplemental 
brief furnished in response to an order of this Court, the appellants concede 
the mootness of these cases. In a Supplemental Brief of Appellees, the appellees 
contend that the issues in this case have not been rendered moot by the adoption 
of Ch. 186, S.L. of Wyoming 1983. In that brief the appellees, as indicated, 
concede the loss of regulatory and supervisory authority by the Commissioner of 
Insurance, but they contend that one of the propositions articulated in this 
court's opinion in Mortgage Guaranty 
Insurance Corporation v. Langdon, supra, continues to be a viable issue in 
other areas of insurance law. The appellees seek what we are persuaded is an 
advisory opinion with respect to this issue. In presenting this argument the 
appellees fail to consider the limited scope of these appeals which deals only 
with the propriety of the denial of a writ of mandamus by the district court. If 
we could issue such an advisory opinion we could not reach that question in 
these appeals.

[¶4.]      In a number of 
cases this court has had occasion to invoke the rule that when it has notice of 
facts which have the effect of making a determination by this court of a 
question unnecessary, or which would render any judgment this Court might 
pronounce ineffectual, the appeal should be dismissed. Northern Utilities, Inc. v. Public Service 
Commission of Wyoming, Wyo., 620 P.2d 139 (1980); Shaffer v. Lee, Wyo., 616 P.2d 779 
(1980); In the Matter of Estate of 
Frederick, Wyo., 599 P.2d 550 (1979); Belondon v. State ex rel. Leimback, 
Wyo., 379 P.2d 828 (1963); Cheever v. 
Warren, 70 Wyo. 296, 249 P.2d 163 (1952); State ex rel. Schwartz v. Jones, 61 Wyo. 
350, 157 P.2d 993 (1945); Scott v. 
Ward, 49 Wyo. 243, 54 P.2d 805 (1936). The specific repeal by Ch. 186, S.L. 
of Wyoming, 1983, of the particular statutes under which these regulatory 
proceedings were pursued by the Commissioner of Insurance has exactly that 
effect.

[¶5.]      The general rule 
is that the repeal of a statute has the effect of extinguishing pending 
litigation brought under its provisions in the absence of a savings clause. The 
powers to regulate which were invoked by the Commissioner of Insurance were 
extinguished by the repeal of those statutes in the "Competitive Rating Act" 
with no provision allowing pending litigation to continue. Flanigan v. Sierra County, 196 U.S. 553, 
25 S. Ct. 314, 49 L. Ed. 597 (1905); and Department of Social Welfare v. Wingo, 
77 Cal. App. 2d 316, 175 P.2d 262 (1946). See Mahoney v. State, 5 Wyo. 520, 42 P. 13, 
63 Am.St.Rep. 64 (1895); and State 
Highway Commission v. Wieczorek, S.D., 248 N.W.2d 369 (1976). With the 
abrogation of the power of the Commissioner to regulate the type of insurance 
coverage involved in the pending proceedings, the proceedings brought under that 
authority lost their viability and the matters became 
moot.

[¶6.]      IT THEREFORE IS 
ORDERED that these appeals be, and they hereby are, dismissed.