Title: Perlman v. Great States Life Insurance Company
Citation: 436 P.2d 124
Docket Number: 21896
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: January 15, 1968

436 P.2d 124 (1968) Howard M. PERLMAN and Intercontinental Enterprises, Inc., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiffs in Error, v. GREAT STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Defendant in Error. No. 21896. Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department. January 15, 1968. Winner, Berge, Martin &amp; Camfield, Denver, for plaintiffs in error. Ireland, Stapleton, Pryor &amp; Holmes, D. Monte Pascoe, Ronald S. Luedemann, Denver, for defendant in error. SUTTON, Justice. The sole question on this writ of error iswhether personal service of process in Colorado on the President of Great States Life Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, on November 13, 1964 is valid? After a hearing on affidavits and counter-affidavits the trial court quashed the service, *125 dismissed the complaint as to Great States and entered a ruling under R.C.P. Colo. 54(b) that there was no just reason for delay in the entry of a final judgment. Whether the judgment should be sustained admittedly depends upon the sufficiency of the Colorado contacts of the defendant in error. Pertinent facts disclosed by the record are: The only apparent conflict in the opposing affidavits is that Perlman alleges that as executive officer of the Illinois company (while also serving as President of the Colorado subsidiary) he "* * * performed various * * * duties as such officer from Colorado * * *" whereas Kleckner's affidavit denies that assertion. The trial court resolved that issue in favor of Great States and we have been shown no reason to disturb its conclusion. See Bolger v. Dial-A-Style Leasing Corp., 159 Colo. 44, 409 P.2d 517 (1966); 20 C.J.S. Corporations § 1920 c. Turning next to the above recited Colorado contacts, we must conclude that neither severally nor jointly do they establish that minimal status necessary to give our courts jurisdiction over Great States. For example, a non-admitted reinsurer allowing service of process on the Colorado Commissioner of Insurance in connection with reinsurance certainly does not allow service under these facts. Neither does stock ownership in a domestic company nor common directors, establish that Great States was doing business in Colorado. The rule applicable to the latter situations is that where the parent and its subsidiary maintain separate identities and charge each other for services performed, as is apparent here, the corporations will be treated as separate entities for the purpose of determining personal jurisdiction. Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co., 267 U.S. 333, 45 S. Ct. 250, 69 L. Ed. 634 (1925); Bolger, supra. *126 As to the reinsurance treaties, the record fails to show that these were executed in Colorado. Perlman had the burden of proof (Bolger, supra) in regard to this essential assertion of jurisdiction. Morris &amp; Co. v. Skandinavia Insurance Co., 279 U.S. 405, 49 S. Ct. 360, 73 L. Ed. 762 (1929). In this connection, we find the following apt quotation in 2 Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law § 21.54 at page 524 (2d ed. 1966): Also, loans to a corporate subsidiary or to a distributor, without more, do not constitute doing business, nor would the purchase of services from such entities. See Begole Aircraft Supplies, Inc. v. Pacific Airmotive Corp., 121 Colo. 88, 212 P.2d 860 (1949); and cf. Focht v. Southwestern Skyways, Inc., 220 F. Supp. 441 (D.Colo.1963). Perlman's employment contract was with a domestic corporation, Life Assurance Company of the West. His claim for alleged breach of his employment contract against it does not involve Great States. His claim against the latter is for failure or refusal to re-issue certain stock given him by Nimmo. And his claim against Nimmo, who apparently has never been served, is for damages for breach of a personal contract between two individuals. Obviously, none of these transactions constitutes doing business in Colorado as far as Great States is concerned. Finally, we turn to the question of the applicability of 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 37-1-26. From what has been said it is apparent that Great States has not yet had those minimal contacts necessary to hold that it was doing business in Colorado when its president was served here. Consequently, C.R.S. 1963, 37-1-26 can have no application. The judgment is affirmed. MOORE, C. J., and McWILLIAMS and PRINGLE, JJ., concur.