•  
  •  

Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 42 > Issue 1 (1943)

 

Abstract

Plaintiffs, reciprocal insurance associations which insure against fire and related risks, and whose attorneys-in-fact are located in Illinois, brought a declaratory judgment action in New York state courts for a determination of the applicability to them of the New York law requiring that such co-operative insurance associations obtain a license, or be prohibited from doing "any act which effects, aids or promotes the doing of an insurance business" in New York. As a condition of the license, submission to the New York regulations is required. The activities of the associations within the state of New York include investigation by engineers of the insurance risk, examination of extent of losses, and encouragement as to reduction of fire hazards, in addition to reservation in the contract of the right to go into New York to rebuild or, repair damaged property. Held, the object of this activity was not the signing of a contract or a check ( which took place in Illinois), but the protection of property permanently located in New York, which gave to New York the requisite "degree of interest" for regulation; and the above enumerated contacts between the insurer and the property within the state were sufficient to warrant regarding the reciprocals as "doing business in New York," and therefore subject to regulation by that state. The regulations themselves were held to be within the scope of the state's power, even though they had some effect on business activities of the associations carried on outside the state. They did not deny "due process of law" and "equal protection of the law." Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Pink, 318 U.S. 313, 63 S. Ct. 602 (1943).

Download

Share

COinS