Citation Numbers: 1 N.J. Misc. 386
Judges: Trenchard
Filed Date: 7/7/1923
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/25/2022
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The defendant insurance company (who appeared specially for the purpose) seeks to have service of the process set aside.
The defendant is a Nebraska corporation, and had been admitted to do business in New Jersey, pursuant to section 59 of the Insurance act (Comp. Stat., p. 2855), but its license expired February 28th, 1923, and was not reneyed.
Service of the process in this case was made upon the commissioner of banking and insurance April 27th, 1923, under, as it is contended, the authority of the third paragraph of section 59, which provides for the filing of an instrument constituting the commissioner the company’s attorney upon whom process may be served, and further declares that “the authority thereof shall continue in force irrevocable -so long as any liability of the company remains outstanding in this state.”
The argument in support of the rule seems to rest upon the following proposition, stated in defendant’s affidavit (1)
The defendant admits in its brief that the plaintiff has a license permitting it to do business in this state, but seems to contend that such license was obtained only for the purpose of maintaining this action. Rut this contention, so far as this record discloses, is wholly without foundation.
I turn now to the defendant’s contention that the cause of action alleged in the complaint is not a liability of the defendant company outstanding in this state because “it rests upon an award becoming effective in the State of New York.”
It seems clear that such contention is ill-founded.
.It appears that in 1921 an action was pending in our Supreme Court between the same parties wherein the present plaintiff claimed damages from the defendant for an alleged breach of a contract relating to insurance business in this state. In consideration of the discontinuance of that suit the parties agreed to arbitrate the matters in difference, and the arbitration agreement provided that the arbitration proceedings might be had either in the State of New Jersey or in New York' City, before two arbitrators and an umpire, some of whom were residents of New Jersey and some of New York. It further provided that “the award of the arbitrators and umpire, or any two of them, shall be final, conclusive and binding,” and the umpire’s “decision in the event of any disagreement between the arbitrators shall be final and conclu