276 GENTRY V. REPUBLIC UNDERWRITERS. [190 GENTRY V. REPUBLIC UNDERWRITERS. . 43744 Opinion delivered February 4, 1935. INSURANCE—AUTHORITY OF INTER-INSURANCE EXCHANGE. — Under Acts 1921, No. 493, § 1, an inter-insurance exchange is authorized to write fidelity and . surety insurance or any other kind of insurance except. life insurance. Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; Marvin Harris, Judge; affirmed. Walter L. Pope, Attorney General, for appellant. DuVal L. Purkins, for appellee. • MCHANEY, J. Appellant has correctly stated the case as follows : "The appellee is an inter-insurance exchange or-cr anized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas. On March 1, 1934, said exchange applied to appellant for authority to do business in this State, setting out in its application the kinds of insurance it desired to write, among which was listed fidelity and surety insurance. Appellant issued to appellee a certificate of authority permitting it to write fire, liability and plate
ARK.] GENTRY V. REPUBLIC UNDERWRITERS. 977 glass insurance, but denied to it the privilege of writing fidelity and surety insurance.. Appellant's refusal was based on the grouna that appellee had not qualifibd as a surety company, and bad not made and filed the $50,000 qualifying bond required of surety comPanies. 'The appellee filed its petition in the PulaSki Circuit (Court) Second Divisi 'on, for a . writ of mandamus to compel the appellnnt to extend its authority to permit the writing of surety business, to which petition: appellant responded. Upon a trial of the cause judgment Was entered in favor of the appellee, and a writ of mandathus was issued direeting the appellant to extend the authority issued to appellee to Permit the writing of fidelity and surety . contracts. Froth the order of the court grnnting appellee's petition this appeal is taken.''.. Section 6045, et seq., Crawford & Moses' Digest, authorize and regulate the exchange of reciprocal . or inter-insurance contracts. These sections are taken from act 152 of 1.915. Section 6056 provides : "kxcept as herein provided, no law. of this State relating to insurance shall apply to the exchange of, such. indemni -ty: .contracts.'' Section 6045 reads as follows: "Individuals, partnerships and corporations of this . State, hereby designated subscribers, are hereby authorized to 'exchange reciprocal- or inter-insurance contracts with each other, or with individnals, partnerships and corporations of other States and countries, providing indemnity among themselves 'for an) ; loss which may be insured against under other provisions of the laws, excepting life insurance.'' Act 493 of the ActS of 1921 provides, in § 1, that corporations may be formed or enter thiS • State to effect insurances for the following'purposes: Fifteen kinds of insurance are then listed including, fire, marine, life, disability, liability, steain boiler, fidelity arid surety, title, credit, burglary, plate glass, Sprinkler leakage, elevator, live stock, and other casualty insurance. The concluding part of § 1. is as follows : "Companies formed oh the stock or mutual plan may transact any kind of insurance authorized by this section, unless capital stock is specifi-
278 GENTRY V. REPIIRLIC UNDERWRITERS., [190 cally requiTed by law-, and yeciprocal or . inter-insurance associations may transact any busMess authori4ed by this section other than life, and comPanies pther than mutyal assessment companies shall maintain proper and legal reserves on business written in this State." Appellant admits that, under a strictly literal construction of act . 152, supra, the Legislature Seems to confer upon inter-insurance exchanges the right to write any kind of insurance permitted by the laws of this State eX-cepting only life insurance. Appellant might well have admitted also that act *493, supra, confers upon such inter-insurance exchanges the same* right. It is argued by appellant however that the Legislatnre did not mean just exactly what it said. It is insisted that the Legislature intended that the risks . to be written by reciprocal. exchanges should be reciprocal. In other words, that, to preserve the idea of reciprocity, it is neceSsary that the contracts of an exchange be restricted to one 'line or to several allied lines.- In nther words, if *it wrote a fire policy for one subscriber,, a plate glass fOr another, an accident 'or liability policy' for another, and so' on, the result wonld be a conglomeration of different risks with no mutuality or reciprocity among them'. 'We assume, however, that the risks taken by such an exchange would be classified, putting all . ot a similar line in .one class. We think the statutes above quoted from are too plain for construction. They simply provide that such exchanges may engage in any kind of insurance nathed except life insurance. It is insisted that it would be absurd to permit such exchanges to engage in the , fidelity and surety insurance business, and especially to write official bonds. This ,is an argument tbat might well be addressed to the Legislature with much.force.. The right to transact insurance business and the various kinds of insurance business is . purely statutory, and we do not feel that we have tbe right to legislate upon this question. The language of the acts above quoted is , unambiguous, and we have no right to refuse to enforce it as written. Affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.