Burleson v. Northwestern Mutual Insurance
Before: Works
Synopsis
Insurance — Compensation op Agent— Commissions on Premiums—Conditions— Contracts—Construction.—When an insurance agent appointed for this state under a contract for commissions on premiums, with certain conditions attached, enters into another contract with the company, whereby part of the state is committed, with his consent, to another agent, and his commissions on premiums in the territory so committed is fixed at a reduced rate, without attaching express conditions to such reduced commissions, the second contract must be construed in connection with the original contract and as a modification thereof, and all conditions attached to commissions upon premiums in the original contract apply to such reduced commissions.
Id.—Termination op Agency — Limitation of Right to Commissions — Assignment. — When the contract of an insurance agent with the company limits the right to receive commissions on renewal premiums to the duration of the agency, and provides that the agency may be terminated at any time for failure of the agent to account for moneys collected, the agent cannot transfer to an assignee any greater right than he himself possesses; and if the agency is terminated for a shortage of the agent in his accounts, his assignee can recover no commissions on premiums accruing after such termination, though such agent or his assignee may recover any commissions actually earned before the defalcation for which the agency was terminated, subject to the indebtedness of the agent growing out of his agency under the contract,
Works, J. — On the third day of March, 1885, the respondent, an insurance company, entered into a contract with one Abbott, by which it appointed said Abbott its agent in the state of California, and agreed to pay him certain commissions on premiums collected on insurance business done by him, and seven and one half per cent commissions on renewal premiums obtained, under a certain contract of the respondent and certain other agents, and under the contract with Abbott. This commission on renewal premiums was to be paid “while he retained the agency, and no longer.” In consideration of the payment of these commissions, the agent stipulated to “ devote his entire time, energy, and ability to soliciting applications, collecting premiums, and otherwise promoting the interests of the company,” and bound himself to make reports each month of the business, and pay to the respondent all moneys by him collected up to the time of making such report, less his commissions.
The contract provided that it should terminate on the first day of June, 1892, unless sooner terminated by the company, through its proper officers, for a failure or neglect of the agent to keep and perform any of the stipulations therein, and also contained this clause: “ A failure or neglect to make reports or pay over moneys [344]belonging to the said company, according to the conditions of this contract, shall be considered good and sufficient reason for closing this agency at any time without notice, anything in this contract to the contrary notwithstanding.”
It was also stipulated: “ And it is further understood and agreed that, upon the discontinuance of this contract in any way, all interest of said agent in this contract in commissions on premiums shall revert back to the company, except as above mentioned, and upon the deferred semi-annual and quarterly premiums on new business, unless it is otherwise specially agreed.”
On the fifteenth day of April, 1886, the same parties entered into another contract, as follows: “ For value received, and in consideration of retaining the remainder of any contract with the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, under date of March 3, 1885, I hereby release and relinquish to the said company all of my right, title, and interest in and to so much of the territory mentioned in the said contract as is described as follows, to wit, all that portion of the state of California that is north of and includes the counties of Monterey, Tulare, and Inyo, so that the field hereafter covered by my said contract shall comprise and consist only of such portion of the state of California as is south of said counties; and I hereby consent and agree that such of the seven and one half per cent {7\\- per cent) renewals as are mentioned in said contract, and are situated in the territory hereby released and relinquished, may hereafter, during the continuance of my said contract, be collected by the said company in such manner as it may elect, making to me quarterly statements of said collections so made, and paying me, or to my order, five and one half per cent (5£ per cent) on the same during the continuance of the said contract.”
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)