Polk v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n

Citations

• 137 F. 273
• 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5222

Syllabus

<p>1. Insurance—Policy Holders—Rights—Determination.</p> <p>Rights of policy holders and the insurer must be ascertained and determined in connection with constitution and by-laws of the society, and the certificates of insurance constituting the contract between the parties.</p> <p>2. Same—Federal Courts—Rifles of Decision.</p> <p>In a suit in the federal courts to determine the rights of policy holders and the insurer, the decisions of the highest courts of the state are of controlling authority.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—State laws_ as rules of decision in federal courts, see notes to Wilson v. Perrin, 11 C. C. A. 71; Hill v. Hite, 29 C. C. A. 553.]</p> <p>3. Same—Contract Provisions—Construction—Validity.</p> <p>A stipulation in an insurance policy that the place of the contract was agreed to be the home office of the insurer, and that the policy should be governed by, and construed only according to, the laws of New York, was binding on both parties, unless such stipulations or express provisions of the contract impaired the obligations of a contract, or conflicted with the laws of the state where the contract was made.</p> <p>4. Same—Reorga nization—Effect.</p> <p>The act of reincorporating an insurance association in conformity with New York Insurance Law, § 52 (Laws 1892, p. 1955, c. 690, as amended by Laws 1901, p. 1779; c. 722), authorizing such reincorporation, did not operate to create a new corporation, though a different name was assumed, and a new policy of insurance adopted.</p> <p>5. Same—Change of Plan—Obligation of Contract.</p> <p>Where complainants became members of an insurance association, and received certificates which in terms provided that they should be construed and be subject to the laws of New York, the reorganization of such association and a change of its plan of operations, as authorized by New York Insurance Law, § 52 (Laws 1892, p. 1955, c. 690, as amended by Laws 190.1, p. 1779, c. 722), did not constitute an impairment of complainants’