OLD RELIABLE MUTUAL INS. CO. v. STATE INSURANCE BD

OLD RELIABLE MUTUAL INS. CO. v. STATE INSURANCE BD
1956 OK 58
294 P.2d 294
Case Number: 37060
Decided: 02/21/1956
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

OLD RELIABLE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
STATE INSURANCE BOARD, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.

Syllabus by the Court.

¶0 Under the facts and circumstances of this case, held: that the State Insurance Board properly denied applicant license to write insurance due to its failure to fully comply with provisions of

Appeal from Order of State Insurance Board denying applicant license to write insurance as Mutual Fire Insurance Company. Order affirmed.

Odes Harwood, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., J.H. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Horace G. Rhodes and Jack Lawter, Asst. Ins. Com'rs and Legal Advisors, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

WILLIAMS, Vice Chief Justice.

¶1 Plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as "Company" is a tentatively formed proposed mutual fire insurance company seeking to be licensed by defendant in error, hereinafter referred to as the "Board", to write insurance under the provisions of Title

¶2 The Board asserts "that the plaintiff in error has failed to comply with

"A premium upon each application shall be collected in cash, and the corporation shall hold total cash assets of not less than twice the maximum single risk assumed subject to one fire, nor less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00)."

Company, replying and referring to said sub-section 3, supra, says: "The above statute is interpreted by this Plaintiff in Error to mean $10,000.00 cash - no less, and this we have complied with * * *." The rationale of Company's contention is that the meaning of such statutory requirement is only that the Company must have $10,000 in cash at time of application, whatever may be the amount of its liabilities. We do not agree.

¶3 Under the facts and circumstances of this case as disclosed by the record, we hold that the Company did not comply with the requirements of

¶4 The order of the Board is therefore affirmed.

¶5 JOHNSON, C.J., and HALLEY, BLACKBIRD, JACKSON and HUNT, JJ., concur.