McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||||||
| Argued November 20, 1957 Decided December 16, 1957 |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||||||
| Reversed and Remanded | ||||||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||||||
| Majority by: Black, J. Joined by: Justices Frankfurter, Douglas, Burton, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, Whittaker Warren took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
||||||||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||||||||
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1738 | ||||||||||||||
McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220 (1957), was a case following in the line of decisions interpreting International Shoe v. Washington.[1] The Court declared that California did not violate the Due Process Clause by entering a judgment upon a Texas insurance company who was engaged in a dispute over a policy it maintained with a California resident. The importance of this finding is highlighted by the facts of the case; mainly that International Life Insurance did no other business within the state of California besides maintaining this single policy, which the company became responsible for by its acquisition of another insurance company which previously had held the policy.
Contents |
[edit] Facts
The plaintiff, McGee, was the mother of a man who had bought a life insurance policy from an Arizona corporation that named the McGee as a beneficiary. Later, International Life Insurance Co. ("International"), a Texas corporation, assumed the responsibilities of the Arizona corporation in regards to the policy held by McGee's son. International used the mails to send the policy holder, who was residing in California, confirmation of their desire to continue to insure him. The policy holder continued to pay the premiums of the policy by sending money from California to International in Texas. At no time had International conducted any business within the state of California, with the exception of this one policy.
McGee's son died. McGee began the process of claiming her benefits according to her deceased son's life insurance policy, but International refused to honor the policy.
[edit] Procedural History
McGee sued International in a California court. She was able to do so because California had enacted a long arm statute which enabled the state courts to have jurisdiction over out of state insurance companies who held policies with in state residents.[2] The California court entered a judgment in favor of McGee. Because International had no property within the state of California, and therefore nothing which California could seize through judicial decree, that state's courts were powerless to enforce any judgment against the company.
McGee then attempted to have her California judgment enforced by a Texas court through the use of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. Interestingly, the Texas Courts refused to give California Full Faith and Credit on its judgment, claiming that the California court overreached its constitutional authority by holding jurisdiction over International. Texas' main point of contention was the fact that California had not issued service of process to International within its own borders, a theory which had, until recent case law, been correct.[3]
McGee filed a petition for certiorari and it was granted by the Warren Court.
[edit] Main Questions for the Court
The relevant question for the court was whether the Due Process Clause precluded the California court from entering a binding judgment on International.[4]
[edit] Holding and Reasoning
The Court held that California did not violate the Due Process Clause by entering a judgment on the Texas corporation.
The court relied on the fact that the suit was based on "substantial connection[s]" with California, particularly the facts that the contract was delivered to McGee's son while he was a resident of California, International continued to maintain a financial relationship with McGee's son by collecting his premium payments, and that the policy holder was a resident of the state when he died.
The court also gave weight to California's interest in protecting its residents as consumers of insurance policies, and validated the long arm statute which gave the California courts their power of jurisdiction over out of state companies by declaring that California had a "manifest interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents ..."[5]
[edit] See also
[edit] Notes
- ^ Jack H. Friedenthal ET Al., Civil Procedure: Cases and Materials (9th ed. 2005).
- ^ Cal. Insurance Code, 1953, 1610-1620 (for reasons why this is significant see Pennoyer v. Neff and its progeny)
- ^ McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 288 S.W.2d 579 (Tex. App. 1956)
- ^ 355 U.S. 220, 223 (1957) (Again, to fully understand the relevance of this question, please see Pennoyer v. Neff and the case law which evolved from this decision); Also, see International Shoe v. Washington
- ^ Ibid
[edit] External link
- Decision Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
