The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-02-07
POLICY HOLDERS PROTECTED
AttOrney-General HOrd's Opinion Of the
Rights Of Foreign Companies.
lie CONSTITUTES the Laws to Hold Them Amen
able, Even Though all Their COndi-
tons Are Not Complied With.

An opinion Of concern to foreign insurance
companies and their policy holders in Indiana
was given by Attorney general Hord, yesterday,
in reply to questions addressed to him by James
H Rice, the Auditor of State, asking ''If for
eign insurance company issues policy in this
State to a citizen of the State without first COM
plying with our laws, and fling with the Auditor
of State a certified copy of vote resolution
of the board of directors of such company, con-
sentng that service of process in any suit
against such company may be served upon an
authorized agent of such company in the State
of Indiana, and agreeing further that if, at any
time, there be no authorized agent of such COM
pany in the county where any such suit saall be
brought, service thereafter may be made on the
Auditor of State, is such policy void"
In answer to the question, Attorney general
Hord says that 'by failing to comply with the
requirements of the law, the companies and their
agents render themselves liable to the penalties
denounced by the law, but such failure does not
affect the validity of the policies issued by them
or in any manner operate to the prejudice of the
policy holders. (Citations-Ehrmanv VS.. Teutonia
Insurance Company, McCrary 1913; Union Mu-
tual Insurance Company VS. McATilen, "a Ohio
Salt Company, 81 Mich, 346; Columbus Insur-
ance Company VS.. Walsh, Is No, 229 Lamb VS..
Bowser, Bissell, 3l5-372; Hartford Live Stock
Insurance Company vs. Matthews, 102 Mass, 22l;
New England Fire Insurance Company VS. Rob
inson, % Ind, 536; Union Central Insurance
Company VS.. Thomas, 46 Ind, 44-46 Walter A.
Wood Moving Company VS. Caldwell, "a Ind,
270, 216; Behler, administrator, VS.. German In
surance Company GO Ind, 348, 3j4-5; Deming
VS. The State, % Ind, All; Scatter VS.. State, 81
Ind, 81
GA foreign insurance company not complying
with the laws of the State of Indiana could not
sue on and enforce any contract in its favor dur
ing such noncompliance in the courts of the
State (Cassadey VS. American Insurance Com
pany, y Ind. 45; American Insurance Company
VS.. Pressell, rs Ind. 442 Johnnon VS.. State, 65
Ind, 204; Hoffman vs. Banks, Al Ind, Z; Rising
Sun Insurance Company vs. Slaughter, 20 Ind,
| 250)'
The Auditor also asks: 'tCan citizen of In
diana acquire jurisdiction and right to sue
such foreign insurance companies in the courts
of Indiana policy issued to him in this State!
If so, how, and upon whom can process be servedt
Foreign insurance companies" the Attorney
general answers, incorporated by the laws Of
other States have no absolute right to do bust
ness in this State, without the consent, expressed
OF implied, of our General Assembly. This con
| sent may be given on such conditions as the Leg
| islature may think proper to impose. One of
these conditions may be that it shall consent to
be sued in the State. If foreign corporation
does business within the State it will be pre-
sumed to have assented. and will be bound ac
| cordingly. (Citations-Railroad Co. vs. Harris,
! II Wall. Go; Ehrman vs.. Teutonia ms. Co, Nc
Crazy ia; ex-parte Schallenberger SO U. S. r.,
1863; Railway vs. Written, 10 Wall, go 2S5;
Hayden VS., Androscoggine Mills, 9 Rep, 27O.)
THE receipt of the premium and the execution
and delivery of the policy by the company, are
| equivalent to an assertion by the company that
it has complied with the requirements of the
statute, to entitle it to do business in the State
And as between the assured and the company,
the latter is estopped upon the soundest prin-
ciples of law and morals To say that it has not
done so, that the stipulation not in fact filed
with the Auditor is of consequence if the
company has done those things which imposed
upon it the obligation and duty to file it.
''The law deduces the agreement on the part of
the company to answer in the courts of this State
on service made upon the Auditor, from the fact
of its doing business in the State, and to the pre-
sumption of that fact of assent to service in the
mode prescribed by the statute, is conclusive,
and no averment evidence to the contrary
| ought to be admissible to defeatthe jurisdiction.
The reason of this rule is that the obligation to
file the stipulation is imposed for the protection
of the citizen dealing with the company, and
when, by its own act, its obligation to file the
stipulation and comply with the law of the State
is perfect, as between the company and the
citizen, the company ought not to be
permitted to relieve itself from
liability which the written stipulation would
have imposed by pleading its own turpitude and
fraud on the law of the State and her citizens.
In such cases the law conclusively presumes
that to have been done which law and duty and
the rights of the party contracting with the
company required to be DONE 1t is a familiar
principle that jurisdiction cannot be acquired by
fraud. Nor can it be evaded by the fraud of
the company. The maxim that no man shall
take advantage of his own wrong is as applicable
to corporations as as to natural persons. And
it is my opinian that process in such cases may
be served on the Auditor of State and iuris-
diction over such foreign company thereby ac-
quired in our own courts. Citation. -Ehrman
VS.. Teutonia Insurance Company, 1McCrary, r.,
124; eX-parte Schallenberger, SO U. S. r., 1863;
Railroad Company VS.. Harris IL WALL Co. Rail
way Company VS.. Written, Is Wall, 270-2S5)
A New Poultry Association.