Search Supreme Court Cases


U.S. Supreme Court

Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Cullen, 318 U.S. 313 (1943)

Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Cullen

No. 358

Argued February 3, 4, 1943

Decided March 1, 1943

318 U.S. 313


1. In determining whether there is being done within a State a business in insurance which is subject to regulation by the State, considerations of the location of activity prior to and subsequent to the making of the contract, of the degree of interest of the regulating State in the object insured, and of the location of the property insured are separately and collectively of great weight. P. 318 U. S. 319.

2. Reciprocal insurance associations which insured property located in New York, although their attorneys-in-fact were located in Illinois and the contracts of insurance were signed and checks in payment of losses were mailed in Illinois, held subject to regulation by New York. Pp. 318 U. S. 315, 318 U. S. 319.

The reciprocal insurance associations in this case had many actual contacts (detailed in the opinion) with subscribers and the insured property in New York; much of the insurance covered immovables located in New York, and the associations had for years been licensed to do business in New York.

3. Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, distinguished. P. 318 U. S. 318.

4. The New York regulations of foreign reciprocal insurance associations here challenged -- regulations aimed at the protection of the solvency of such associations or at promoting the convenience of residents of the State in doing their insurance business -- held not violative of the due process or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 318 U. S. 321.

(1) That the regulations affect business activities which are carried on outside of the State does not, in itself, render them invalid. P. 318 U. S. 320.

(2) Since each subscriber is an insurer and other subscribers are dependent on his financial responsibility, the requirement that each new subscriber must have assets in excess of $10,000 does not violate the equal protection clause. P. 318 U. S. 321.

(3) Reciprocal insurance associations are not denied equal protection by the imposition upon them of requirements different from those imposed upon mutual companies. P. 318 U. S. 321.

Page 318 U. S. 314

(4) The requirements that an office be maintained in the State and that policies be countersigned by a resident agent are valid. P. 318 U. S. 321.

(5) The argument that reciprocals give complete security with substantial economy to their members, and that New York subscribers may lose the benefits of this form of insurance by reason of the inability of the reciprocals to comply with the New York law cannot affect the validity of the challenged regulations. P. 318 U. S. 321.

288 N.Y. 291, 43 N.E.2d 49, affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment entered on remittitur of the Court of Appeals of New York, which sustained the validity of provisions of the state Insurance Law as applied to the appellants. See also 262 App.Div. 446, 29 N.Y.S.2d 300, and 24 N.Y.S.2d 312.

Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: HOOPESTON CANNING CO. V. CULLEN, 318 U. S. 313 (1943)

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.