State ex rel. Ellis v. Union Central L. Ins.

Citations

• 22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 262

Syllabus

<p>INSURANCE — QUO WARRANTO.</p> <p>1. False Representations to Prospective Policy Holders as to Participation in Profits do not Make a Stock Company a Mutual One.</p> <p>That representations made hy life insurance companies are not all true is a matter of general knowledge. Hence, representations concededly intended to deceive prospective policy holders or recklessly made by a stock company that it was doing a mutual business, and that policy holders, electing to take participating contracts, had written in their contracts that they should share in the profits “as apportioned by the company” does not transform such company into a mutual company or even make the participating contracts, mutual insurance contracts, or estop the company from treating the surplus funds as belonging to the stockholders,</p> <p>2. Commingling of Funds of Participating and Nonparticipating Contracts not Misuse of Charter Rights of Stock Company.</p> <p>The doctrine of commingling of funds cannot be resorted to in showing misuse of charter privileges by a life insurance company where neither contract, law nor usage has required such company to keep its funds separate.</p> <p>S. Public Mischief not Private Rights Determinable by Quo Warranto Proceedings.</p> <p>In quo warranto against an insurance company for alleged misuse of its franchise, the only question for consideration is whether some public mischief is being done or threatened; a court cannot concern itself with the rights of policy holders or stockholders.</p> <p>[Syllabus approved by the court.]-</p>