Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-03-11
MAINE LEGISLATURE.
Continued from page -

wise legislation, and not only unwise
legislation but unconstitutional. Yet
this fundamental principle has been
set at naught by the act of 1893 which
leaves no choice to the insured as to
whether he will accept a policy de-
priving him of a jury and other impor-
tant rights which have been secured to
him in the past; for Section l of this
act irgeniously provides that no in
surance company shall issue fire in
surance policies on property in this
State other than those of the standard
forr, hereinafter set forth" The in
,snred can accept this policy or none at
ali. No voluntary waiver of con-
sstitutional right is here involved, as
no choice in the form of insurance is
presented. The constitutionality of
such a statute may well be questioned
Fire Insurance companies are the
only corporations who have received
the exceptional favor at the hands of
the Legislature of being exempted
from the constitutional provision as to
jury trials in civil suits" SO far as
questions of damages are concerned,
although other corporations would
doubtless gladly participate in the ex-
emption.
1t will be noticed however that the
Act of 1895 does not deprive the in
surance companies of recourse to the
courts and the protection of jury
trial on any issue which they may set
up as n cause for avoiding the policy.
whether it be n violation of some for
nal provision of the policy not con-
tributing to the loss, or an allegation
80 an tho mart of
the insured.
In view of these facts the Com
missioners on Uniformity of Laws
deem some remedial legislation neces-
sary to meet the unusual exemptions
which insurance companies have Sc
cured for themselves in Maine and
other states, and after a careful con-
sidcration of the matter have reported
the above act which restores certain
rights of the insured but is not as
broad ms the legislation which existed
in this State prior to 1895. l mention
this report because it is obvious to me
that IL Is entitled to great weight,
much more so than the committee
report on mercantile affairs and in
surance. as they are lawyers, who
could pass on the constitutionality OF
this act. and they have declared in
explicit and clear terms that this act is
Unconstitutional.
] say that any legislation which de-
privcs the people of one of the great
est rights that our forefathers bled
fought and died for. is unconstitutional
and certainly the noblest heritage of 4
free people IL the right 10 trial by jury
This LEGISLATURE in 1895 by one stroke
of its pen. obliterated from our laws
all of the innumerable decisions from
1919 70 that date. IT, sirs, mar
wants to wave his constitutional pro-
lection. il is possible for him to do 1T
and that's why the insurance people
say that the standard form of lnsur-
ance policy is constitutional; but II
this case. this is an express statute
and not a contract, which takes away
that right of trial. Is there any law
yer within the sound of my voice, who
would not say that to deprive man o.
tn" right To trial by jury on an lnSur'
ance policy by a statute which simply
said. no person shall have The right u
trial by jury on fire insurance pollcy
Int will be obliged to arbitratc IL N
had a loss. Now. certainly that statute
would be unconstitutional, and what
can make the difference when the effect
Of the present statute is exactly the
same.
The language used by the Supreme
court of this state, in Davis VS.. Auld
reported in the 90 Maine report, pas'
$50 Ia as follows. and | quote, III
constitution is always the Fundamental
law and is read into every statute
Whatever right to a jury trial is SiVei
by the constitution exists under every
statute and will be fully accorded b,
the court. whatever the language o
The statute. Any statute denyln;
such rights, whether In terms or b.
implication, will be so far refused
judicial Cognizance. | say it is on
duty i'm the face and eyes of TIL
opinion of these commissioners to
ge.her with this dictum, | have read
to pause before we leap. and not pas
n law similar to the haWkers' am
pcdlars' law, that has been three time
declared unconstitutional. Now, sirs
they say that this method of adjustin
the loss Is fair: | stand ready to max
good the assertion that the privieg
has been abused. The method of Sc
Letting these three referees, is as fol
lows: You give notice to the INSURANCE
company. in writing. your desire t
arhitrate together with the names q
three disinterested persons; they re
turn YOU a list of three men, yo
choose one from their list and the
chose one from yours. and those tw
choose Il ttird. Now If the insuranc
COMPANY DO not care to arbitrate, blu
prefer a trial by jury. they reserve tn
right to that trial. depriving you q
Your constitutional right. while the
expressly reserve 1t. yet say they ar
fair. My attention has been calc
recently to a case where the attorne
acting in behalf of the insurance com
pnny. after receiving notice from Tn
insured and his list of the referees
appointed ms three disinterested me
&c act for the company" the law stu
dent i'm his office. the Insurance agen
and the special agent of that compan!
and vet we are told that this is fair.
Is nothing more or less than sand
tagging process under the guise c
legislation.
The Insurance Commissioner of thi
State ha. been fiji to impugn the mo