The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-08-02
LIFE INSURANCE SURPLUS.
wisconsin MANS Distribution Decision Not
Regarded Seriously.

Gage e. Tarbell. vioe-president OF the
Equitable Life Assurance Society, does not
think that the decision of State Insurance
Commissioner Host OF Wisconsin,. that
mutual life insurance companies and asso -
ciations must distribute their surplus
among policy holders at least once in every
five years, in compliance with Wisconsin
statute, lie sound Mr.. Tarbell said yes
terday:
| The terms of tho decision reported in the
| morning papers as made yesterday by Com
missioner of Insurance itost Of Wisconsin,
| relating 20 the distribution Of surplus by niu-
| tuul life Insurance. companies. ure unknown
except as indicated in the tragnentary news
paper reports. The proceeding was petition
by a citizen Of Wisconsin who h not policy
Holder IN the Equitable life Assurances So
Cietyi asking that the license OF the society be
revoked because of its alleged non-coin-
pliance with a statute OF Wisconsin known as
section 1852 of the revised statutes OF that
state. ,.
This is the statute to which Mr.. Tarbell
refers: ...
Every life insurance corporation doin &
nutual insurance or the members OF whfch
are entitled 10 share in the surplus tunos
thereof may make distribution OF suoh sur :
plus us they may have accumulated ANNUALLY
or once in two three. four or Ave. years. as the
directors thereof may from time to Time
determine. In determining the amount OF
surplus TO. be distributed there shall be re-
served ain amount not less than the aggregate
net value OF all outstanding policies. sald
value to be computed by the American ES St
perience Table of Mortality. with INTEREST nov
exceeding4f: per cent $50 ~
Continuing, Mr. Tar bell says:
IL appears that the commissioner has held
that may means "mnst and that the statute.
which is pern.ssjve in its terms il mandatory
in It's effect, This question; however, has
OF times. recently, and notably in the courts
of Illinois. where the statute IS Identical IN
terms with the WISCONSIN statute; 10. n 1.-The the
anc e Company, which was decided recently.
the same contention was made as to the
mandatory character OF the statute. but
the Court refused to entertain that view and
held that, the statute was pernlissive ana
was in reality q. restriction upon the too ire
ausnt dstribni9n Of surplus plus instead tso1,S Of ns
ut It Is Impossible to DISCUSS the decision until
sa copy 70 Of Ida tat hs S%
judicial expression and with expert life in
OF lay opinion on a strictly Judicial question
OF statutory construct The question will.
OF course. be taken to the courts, which are.
after all. the only medium through which
satisfactory construction OF statute can
be sought. The Wisconsin statute In question
has been on the. STATUTE books for over thirty
| years and has been uniformly construed by
| all life insurance companies in their practice
| and by all former insurance commissioners,
| as being permissive and as a statute intended
| to restrict the TOO frequent distribution OF
surplus. The effect of the decision, II sus-
| tanned. would be that all companies would be
compelled to write their policies SO that diyi-
| dends should be paid either annually or auln-
| quennialIy, withstandng the preferences
| OF the policyhoders for some other mode
Of distribution ard the provisions Of the
| companies policies. The decision Affects
| all companies alike and II sustained will cause
| them 70 change the practice in that state
| that they have followed since 1870;
have heard expressions concerning IL. lie
| regarded generally as being not only errone-
| GUS but curious. II is certainly not matter
| to be regarded seriously,