Omaha daily bee., 1899-08-20
BAN ON INSURANCE COMPANY
Deputy Commissioner Bryant Shuts Down on
an Indiana Organization.
voLUMlNoUS DECISION IN THE CASE
Governor Poynter Expresses His Re-
gret mt His Inability to Get the
Soldiers Home Mt state
Expense.

LINCOLN, Aug. 19.-(Special.)-Deputy
Insurance Commissioner Bryant this after
noon handed down an opinion Ia the case Of
the State Life Insurance company Of tndi-
ana, against which a complaint was filed
some time ago by sixteen resident insurance
agents OF Omaha. While the insurance COM
missioner does not uphold the allegations
and charges that the company has issued
insurance policies at a special premium rate
he requires 1t to desist from doing business
in Nebraska until 1t is legally authorized
to Insure In it's own state. This is according
TO the reciprocal provision of the Weaver
act.
Argument in this case was heard by
Governor Poynter, acting as insurance com
missioner and w. L.. Bryant as deputy. The
complaint was signed by Charles L. Ady, w.
l.. Fisher, A. r.. Edmisten, G. ]. Gould,
Fleming Bros, C. L. Wighton, Charles w.
Rainey, j. M. Edmisten, w. H. Brown, j.
S. Brown, J. w. Craig, John Steele, r. T.
Alexander, N. T. Rohrer, A. Lansing, l.. r.
Gould, all Of Omaha.
The decision of Deputy Commissioner
Bryant is in part as follows:
The learned counsel for the compliments
labored with great ingenuity to show the
department that the policy of insurance
and the local representative contract were
an entirety. With all due respect to the
duiliIS Vi the COuuStl we are COmpelleu
to dissent from this conclusion. Where
two contracts are not necessary compile
ments OF each other, not necessarily stimuli
taneous In their execution and do not pur-
port upon their face to have the same con-
sideration, the burden Is upon the person
alleging their entirety to prove the same.
1t was claimed that these contracts were
offered promiscuously to any and everybody
as an inducement to insure. If every per-
son insured has one of these contracts the
mntuality Of thp insured cannot be Affected
thereby. But such is not the case. 1t was
affirmed and not denied that the contract
had been issued to some persons not policy
holders, This being the case it would show
that 1t was practically an Independent con-
tract.
The words "by my efforts so directed re-
late to the words ''by recommending to
them suitable persons whom they may Sc
cure for insurance" For this service the
local representative Is to be paid as fol
lows: The company. at the end of ten
years, from January 1, 1899, is, at the end
OF each year, to set aside % cents from it's
expense fund for each 81 900 of insurance in
force, and thus divide the sum obtained by
the number of local representatives.
The quotient is to be the compensation of
each representative, which sum is to be
credited to his premium.
Now we shall not undertake this pro-
cedure as a business proposition; whether
1t will bring prosperity or disaster is not
the question before us. Were we to ex-
anime into the method of doing business
OF every company in the state and say "A
should not be allowed to do business, his
method will bring disaster, and "B" shall
be allowed because his method will bring
prosperity, that would constitute ourselves
guardians of every insurance company in
the state, which the law never designed us
to be.
1t appears from the affidavit and other
admitted facts that some very iridescent
representations had been made by an agent
of the company which, together with the
local contract itself, were the moving cause
In inducing him to insure. An affidavit is
only an eX-parte statement where there Is
no opportunity for cross-examination. The
afiant in this case is a highly respected
gentleman. But TO cancel the license OF q
foreign insurance company upon the sworn
ex-parte statement of a gentleman who
deems himself wronged would be a length
to which this department would not go
Nor do we think the facts sufficient.
That the local representative contract
might be made to operate as a rebate /!
obvious.
That its execution and delivery are ipst
facto a rebate neither appears upon thu
face OF the nor Is established
by evidence aliunde.
We find that the State Life Insurance
company Of indianapolis, Ind, is a sol
vent company; that there is nothing in 1t
charter, constitution, bylaws or method o
doing business, so far as such method ha
been shown, as in conflict with the laws o
this state, except as hereinafter stated.
Were this a domestic company we woul'
dismiss the complaint without ceremony
But the statute of Nebraska contains tn
following section: (Here he gives the re
riprocal' provision of the Weaver law).
Under the advice of the attorney genera
Of that state he has forbidden the issuanc