State ex rel. North Coast Fire Insurance v. Schively

Citations

• 68 Wash. 148
• 122 P. 1020
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 1261

Syllabus

<p>Courts — Jurisdiction—Mandamus—To “State Officers” — Insurance Commissioner. The state insurance commissioner is a state officer, within the meaning of Const., art. 4, § 4, conferring original jurisdiction upon the supreme court in mandamus to “all state officers,” the same not being limited to the heads of executive departments recognized eo nomine as state officers in Id., art. 3.</p> <p>Insurance — Regulation—Statutes— Scope — Pre-Existing Companies. A domestic fire insurance company authorized to and doing a fire and plate glass insurance business prior to the adoption of the insurance code is subject to the restrictions of the code after its adoption, in view of § 238 (Laws 1911, p. 298), providing that all prior acts are superseded and repealed, and §20 (Id., p. 177), providing that all domestic insurance companies then or thereafter formed, and every person doing an insurance business in the state shall be subject thereto.</p> <p>Insurance — Regulation—Authority—Character of Insurance— Fire and Plate Glass — Statutes. Such a fire insurance company has no right to issue plate glass insurance after the adoption of the insurance code, in view of §§83 and 84 (Laws 1911, pp. 217, 223), dividing insurance companies into classes, and limiting fire insurance companies to other classes of insurance (marine and team and vehicle insurance).</p> <p>Same. Section 79 of the insurance code (Laws 1911, p. 216) providing that existing companies previously authorized to transact business in the state are recognized and shall have the right to continue such business under the provisions of the act, provided their capital stock meets the requirements, and that they shall have two years to meet the requirements, does not authorize a fire insurance company formerly doing also a plate glass insurance business, to continue issuing both fire and plate glass insurance in violation of the act, especially in view of a further proviso expressly excepting preexisting life companies fro