p. 440In the Matter of the Application of The People of the State of New York, by James A. Beha, as Superintendent of Insurance, Respondent, for an Order to Take Possession of the Property of the First Russian Insurance Company, Established in 1827, Respondent. James A. Tillman, as Assignee of Karl Schmidt et al., Appellant.decided February 10, 1931.)Borris M. Komar for appellant.
The Superintendent of Insurance has power to consider and allow foreign claims of American citizens. (Matter of People [Norske Lloyd Ins. Co.], 242 N. Y. 148 ; Mabon v. Ongley Electric
p. 441Co., 156 N. Y. 204 ; Drury v. Doherty, 127 Misc. Rep. 263 ; Sands v. Greely & Co., 88 Fed. Rep. 130 ; Willits v. Waite, 25 N. Y. 577 .)James F. Donnelly, Alfred C. Bennett, John M. Downes and Clarence C. Fowler for Superintendent of Insurance, respondent.
Foreign non-attachment claims, based upon policies issued abroad by the parent company, cannot be considered upon the merits by the Superintendent of Insurance nor by the referee in this proceeding. (Matter of People [City Equitable Fire Ins. Co.], 238 N. Y. 147 ; Matter of People [Norske Lloyd Ins. Co.], 242 N. Y. 148 ; 249 N. Y. 139 ; Matter of People [Norske Lloyd Ins. Co., Hallfried], 223 App. Div. 823 ; Matter of People [Second Russian Ins. Co.], 219 App. Div. 46 ; 244 N. Y. 606 ; 224 App. Div. 105 ; 249 N. Y. 30 ; Matter of People [Russian Reinsurance Co.], 223 App. Div. 378 ; Matter of People [Consolidated Assurance Co.], 230 App. Div. 110 .)Frederick B. Campbell and Paul C. Whipp for First Russian Insurance Company, respondent.
- The appellant, the assignee of foreign policyholders of the First Russian Insurance Company, filed proofs of claim under the policies with the Superintendent of Insurance.
A referee appointed by the Supreme Court to report as to the validity of these and other claims, refused to permit the appellant to give evidence in support of his demand upon the ground that the claim, even if otherwise valid, did not arise out of domestic business.
In an opinion filed herewith in which a plan has been adopted for the distribution of the surplus, we have stated that proofs of claims, though growing out of foreign business, should be considered by the liquidator where the corporations are not insolvent.
The order of the Appellate Division and that of the Special Term should be reversed, with costs in the
p. 442Appellate Division and in this court, and the application remitted to the Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Caedozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.
Ordered accordingly.