Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Wright v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance

Wright v. Minn. Mut. Life Ins., 193 U.S. 657 (1904)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1904-04-04
Topic
general

Mr. Justice Day, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of. the court. This is a bill on the part of two dissatisfied holders of certificates, issued while the company was doing business on the assessment plan, to wind up the affairs and distribute the assets of what appears, so far as the record -discloses, to be a solvent and prosperous mutual insurance company with which others in interest are apparently satisfied. The Federal right alleged to be invaded, and the one" adjudicated upon, which gives a right of direct appeal prosecuted from the decree dismissing the bill to this court, is the constitutional guaranty against the impairment of the obligation of a-contract contained in section 10 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States. The complaining certificate holders allege that the laws of Minnesota, under which the changes in the plan- of the insurance business done' by the defendant company were made, from the assessment to the legal reserve, flat premium plan of “old line” insurance, work, a violation of that provisidn.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Wright v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
56 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Constitutional Law — Contracts Clause Not every change in a corporation's charter or articles of association constitutes such a departure from the purposes of its creation as to forfeit obligations incurred to it or to prevent its carrying on the modified business; only a radical departure affecting substantial rights may release members who joined on the basis of the original charter. 193 U.S. 657, 669
  2. Business & Corporate Law — Amendment of Articles — Reserved Power Where the right to amend the articles of association is expressly reserved, the controlling body may exercise that power in good faith to extend the business upon a modified plan that does not change its essential character, and members may not be compelled to remain in a corporation whose fundamental purposes have been changed against their will only where no such reserved power exists. 193 U.S. 657, 669-670
  3. Insurance Law — Assessment Companies — Vested Rights of Policy Holders A policy holder in an assessment insurance association has no vested right to a continuation of the original assessment plan of insurance where the articles reserved the right of amendment, and the association may lawfully change to a regular premium or reserve basis with the approval of a majority of members and the state insurance commissioner. 193 U.S. 657, 671
  4. Constitutional Law — Contracts Clause A state statute authorizing an assessment insurance company to convert to the regular reserve or flat premium plan, and expressly providing that nothing therein shall impair the obligation of any contract, does not impair the obligation of the policy holders' contracts within the Contracts Clause where the right of amendment was reserved in the original articles and no contract guaranteed that the plan of insurance would never be changed. 193 U.S. 657, 672
  5. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Deference to Management of Mutual Insurance Societies Courts are slow to interfere with the management of mutual insurance societies, and while protecting members' rights against arbitrary action, such organizations will ordinarily be left to their own methods of action and management where changes in plan are made in good faith and within corporate powers. 193 U.S. 657, 672