St. Paul daily globe., 1896-03-07
FLAWS IN THE law
BROUGHT TO LIGHT IN CONNECTION
WITH THE BIG ELEVATOR
FIRE.
ABOUT THlRTY-SiX CONCERNS
NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS
IN MINNESOTA CARRIED IN
SURANCE ON 1T.
nY WHOM WAS 1T ALL PLACED.
ABOUT THIRTY-SIX CONCERNS
nY WHOM WAS 1T ALL PLACED.
Deputy Insurance COMMISSIONS
LiShtbOurne VIII Ask for an
Explanation.

The state insurance department is
somewhat exercised over some facts
brought to light by the elevator fire
in Minneapolis Monday. 1t seems from
the list of companies carrying risks on
the building and grain that no fewer
than thirty-siX companies not author
lied to do business in Minnesota had
written premiums on the property, and
that they stand to pay about $215000 of
the losses. If such is true in this case
it is presumed that other large con-
Germs in Minnesota are doing business
with insurance companies that are not
authorized to do business here, which
shows that the law seeking to prevent
it is no good, while the state is los
ing a revenue, the amount of which
cannot be accurately estimated.
The departments attention has been
called to the report that G. b. Shove
placed lot of the insurance with COM
panles not authorized to do business
in the state. If he acted as the legal
agent Of some firm or person who had
secured a license to place business in
unauthorized companies and that firm
had appointed him an attorney-in-fact,
TO place certain amount with such
and such outside companies, then he
was acting within the scope Of the law
and is not subject to criticism. The
state insurance department has de-
cided TO ask Mr.. Shove for an eXplana-
ton, for the records of the department
do not show that the terminal ele-
Vator company secured a license to
place outside insurance, nor do they
snow that any company interested in
having insurance placed on the prop
erty destroyed had a license, except
the Van Dusen company, but this COM
pany only procured a license Dec 81,
which presumably is after the insur-
ance had been placed on the property.
The question which is bothering the
department is on what authority Mr..
Shove acted, because it is not thought
he would have violated the law in plac-
ing the risks.
Il expect Mr. Shove over here tomor-
row. said Deputy Insurance Commits
sioner Lightbourne yesterday, ''and I
intend to ask him for an explanation,
or write to him for one"
Speaking about the placing of in
surance outside of Minnesota, Mr..
Lightbourne said:
80 far as trying to prevent man
from securing insurance in another
state. [ think that is impossible A man
doubtless has the same right to buy
insurance in Chicago as he has a suit
about paying the insurance a man
who has policy in a company not au-
thoriZed to do business in this state
cannot bring an action to recover
from the company except in the state
in which the company does business,
and he is therefore placed at a disad-
vantage"
If companies are bound to do busi-
ness in Minnesota whether they can
secure a license to do so or not, it is
claimed that it would be much better
to let them come in, at least those that
are apparently able to pay their losses
incurred, whether Lloyds or not, and
thus. increase the revenue of the state.
1t is possible the settlement of the
insurance on this fire will bring to a
test-anotheEspart-ef- insurance law
which is regarded as weak at this
point. 1t provides that an agent who
places risk in a company unauthor-
lied to do business in the state shall
be held personally liable for such legit-
innate losses as the company carrying
the risk refuses or is unable to pay.
IL any of the concerns carrying risks
on the Minneapolis property should fail
10 pay Its proPortionate share of the
loss, it is probable that the man who
placed the risk might be called upon
IN the courts to make good the amount
of the loss