The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1923-09-06
SUPREME COURT RULES
ON COMPENSATION LAW
HOLDS AETNA COMPANY LIABLE
IN coEUR D'ALENE ANTI
MoNY CASE.

ne STATE supreme court mas named
down decision in the case Of Alice
NJ. Hauter VS.. the Occur d'Alene Anti
mony Mining company and the Aetna
Life Insurance company, in which the
lower court is traversed and the case
remanded for trial This case was
originally brought by Alice NJ. Hauter
on behalf Of herself and minor son
before the Industrial Accident board
against the Occur d'Alene Anthony
company to recover compensation on
account of the death OF her husband
an employee of the company on No
vember II. 1915 The accident board
awarded Mrs Hauter S12 per week for
400 weeks and 500 for funeral ex-
pnses and S1OS0 per week to the minor
son for four years and two months,
the total award being S726l60. The
award was duly certified to the dist
riot court for Shoshone county and
Judgment entered accordingly on March
25. 1921 on June 30. 1921. the plain
tiff petitioned the court for a writ of
execution supplementary to the iudg-
ment directed against the Aetna Life
Insurance company alleging that the
company about January l. 1918. en-
tered into contract of insurance with
tho anthony company covering its
employees and that this contract was
i'm effect in November. 1918. at the
time of the injury and death of a. #
Hauter; that the insurance company
was therefore liable for the amount
due under the Judgment and that it
is proper and necessary party to the
action and that the insurance COM
cause why eNecusiion should not be I
issued against it for the payment of
said award
Contention Of Insurance Company
Having been cited TO appear the /
Aetna company demWred to the petit /
ton. which was overruled by the court /
For answer the insurance company /
admitted executing the insurance con-
tract, but claimed that it had cancelled
the same pripor to the accident that
the death of A. r. llauter;
that il was not a party to the pro-
ceedings before the accident board, had
not had opportunity to be heard and
was not bound by its decision; that
The award made by said board was
obtained by collision between appel
ant her attorneys and the anthony
company; that at the time of the
leath of A. i. Hauter he was not with
n the provisions OF the worNmens
act because he was re-
'eiving wages amounting to more than
i240O per year; that the anthony
company. at the time the award was
made, pretended to be nsolvent, SO
hat such award could not be collected
rom it,; and finally that on August
. 1918. it served notice on the anti
nony company that the policy and
,ond be cancelled, effective August 20,
91S. on account of non payment of
'remium and that the same was can
elled Following a hearing in the dist
let court on the petition, motion
or non-suit was granted, and from
his ruling appeal was taken to the
upreme court with the result as stated
bove.
Syllabus OF Decision. ,
AN insurance policy insuring an en-
loyer under the workmen's compen-
alton ACT winch contains a recital ,
hat such policy covers the entire lia
nity of the insured for compensation
Or its employees, can only be cancel
"a by the insurance company upon a
trict compliance with the conditions 4
f the policy relating to the manner
+ cancening the same
where hearing was had before
he Industrial Accident board. and it
lade findings. conclusions and an ,
ward based thereon, and further
,und that the employer did not have y,
S employees insured. where the UNI .
sputed evidence shows that a policy "
ad been issued to the employer TO ~
over its liability to it's employees. and e
rat such policy had not been can y
,Hed. but was in force, the question =
to whether the employer has in
rance is one of law. and such finding "
Intellectual to relieve the insurance -
,mpany from liability 10 employees of :,
lch company who have been injured
the course of such service ~
1.-THE provisions of c.. S section 1921 -.
the workmen's compensation act y,
hich excludes from the benefits OF the
It persons whose remuneration eN-
eds $500 a year has no application
one who at the time of the injury ~
not employed under a definite. GER ~,
in contract for a fun year on more
a determined or deteiminabie -
mounting to more than S2l0O NJ
"A claim made against an insurance
mpany is not barred under either
S section 62I3 or 6612 because the
sWance company was not made IN
rty to the original proceeding before
e Industrial Accident hoard against b.
e employer. since by c. s sections
50 and 62SS every policy OF insur-
&c issued under this act must con- sf
In a condition that notice TO the Ia,
sured shall be deemed notice to the ac