188 Iowa 664 | Iowa | 1920
The Mill Owners Mutual Fire Insurance Company, appellant herein, is a mutual fire insurance company, which insures the mill and elevator property of its own members only. It has no capital stock, and pays no dividends as earnings. It does, however, return to its pol
One form of policy used by the company provides for a term insurance of one year. The estimated cost is paid in advance, as a premium. At the expiration of the term, the actual cost of the insurance is charged against the premium account of the policyholder, and the balance, of Ms premium is returned to him. This return to the policyholder is called a “dividend.” The larger part of the insurance carried by the company is on this form of policy. In the event .of liquidation of the company, all of this premium fund would be distributed to the policyholders, pursuant to their policies. The president of the company testified as follows:
“The interest upon the two funds, the ‘permanent fund’ of $100,000 and the ‘cash surplus over and above the permanent fund’ of $361,381.05, all tends to cut down the assessments which will be made upon all members of the company to meet losses and expenses; and, if the policies were wound up today, and the company went out of business, the policyholders would get all of that money.”
The foregoing is, perhaps, a sufficient statement of facts to enable a consideration of the legal question presented to us. This question is whether, under the provisions of Section 1333-c, Code Supplement, 1913, this fund is exempt from local assessment. 'Prior to its amendment by Chapter 258, Acts of the Thirty-seventh General Assembly, this section of the Code was as follows:
“Sec. 1338-c. In assessing for taxation the moneys and credits of every insurance corporation, company or association organized under the laws of this state, except county mutual and fraternal beneficiary associations, which county mutuals and fraternal beneficiary associations are not organized for pecuniary profit, the assessor shall ascertain the debts or liabilities, if any, of such corporation, company
Chapter 2S8, Acts of the Thirty-seventh General Assembly, amended the foregoing by eliminating therefrom that portion thereof which we have included in brackets. We had occasion to construe this section before it was amended in Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Board of Review, 131 Iowa 254. In that case, we held that a certain fund accumulated as a surplus would not come within the exemption provided by this statute. The amendment by the thirty-seventh general assembly was undoubtedly an attempt to enlarge the scope of exemption, and to meet the criticism or difieren-, tiation made in the cited case. It is argued for the appellee that the amendment was not effective for that purpose, because not enough of the language of the section was eliminated to accomplish such purpose. Unless the amendment is effective for such purpose, then it must be said to be wholly without meaning. We should be slow to put such a construction upon it. Clearly, this is a fund which the association has accumulated “for the purpose of fulfilling its policies, certificates, or other contracts of insurance.” Is it a fund “which can be used for no other purpose?” To dissipate this fund except for the purpose of its accumulation would be a breach of the contracts of insurance.
True, while the association continues as a going concern, the component parts of the fund are continually changing. New premiums and assessments are collected; current expenses are paid from these as they accrue; and the residue finds its ultimate place in this fund.
It is the clear policy of the statute to exempt from local assessment the funds of an insurance association which are held for the benefit of policyholders in fulfillment of their contracts of insurance, and which are not an accumulation of earnings or profits accruing for the benefit of mere owners or stockholders of the company.
The fact that this association has no capital stock, and, therefore, has no stockholders or owners, and no beneficiaries except its policyholders, furnishes a persuasive reason why it should be deemed to come fairly within the terms of the exemption provided in this statute.
We reach the conclusion that the statute is applicable.
The conclusion thus reached renders it unnecessary that we consider the question of exemption of that part of this fund invested in government bonds.
For the reason indicated, the judgment of the district court must be and is — Reversed.