*1 609 al., et M. PETROWSKI John Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. INSURANCE
HAWKEYE-SECURITY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11335. Appeals Court of
United States Circuit. Seventh 5,Oct. 1956. 14, of Certiorari Denied
Writ Jan. 1957.
See
Victor appellant. for Tinkham, David A. Gor- P. Richard Keberle, Terwil- man, D. Herbert Ronald Wis., appellees. Wausau, liger, for Judge, DUFFY, Chief Before SCHNACKEN- and FINNEGAN and Judges. BERG, Circuit Judge. FINNEGAN, Circuit reported Reversing decision our earlier Hawkeye-Security Insur v. as Petrowski 126, 1955, Cir., 226 Company, F.2d 7 ance matter, Supreme Court re the in this pro for further case to us the manded ceedings conformity opinion with its in Hawkeye-Security Insur v. in Petrowski 495, 1956, 76 Company, 350 U.S. S. ance 490. Ct. majority opinion pivoted on initial Our jurisdictional question. 226
defendant’s 126, Supreme 134. But Court the F.2d District Court that the had has concluded subject matter and jurisdiction of the Company “by Insurance that defendant right- any stipulation, waived to as- its personal jurisdiction over of a lack sert 495, 490, 496, 491. 76 S.Ct. 350 U.S. it.” accordingly. mandate the We follow attention, however, requiring our Now by points, raised other de- are several *2 610; occurred, fendant, unresolved-; accident for cannot be used and which remained appeal.. Special disposition eradication of Endorsement. of this the under our first Evangelical previous opinion suffi- United v. Grace contains States Since our Church, Cir., pertinent 1943, 7 132 460. The to some F.2d facts cient recitals of merely judge’s finding is points' urged, repetition trial number 18 of evidence is descriptive F-2, unnecessary. Bulletin is used of and reaching by stepping-stone him aas for pointed out and As once have we on nullification Secial of the Endorsement said, certifying Hawkeye-refrained from theory contrary the that the clause was Safety -policy Wisconsin its under the policy public policy- to with when issued Law, Responsibility hence: Financial and reasoning clearly A Such is ret 33603. “Clearly without such a certificate rospective hardly and sufficesas the basis having policy A 33603 filed been cancelling for endorse the troublesome comply to with not varied could be ment. as to down Wisconsin laws so strike question what is little but There 226 the restrictive endorsement.” 3, “Special Endorse Exhibit critical the 126, F.2d 133. integral part policy was A ment” an of is the matter because That end of the Hawkeye agent’s 33603. countersignature of the Absence authorized its risk think could limit
we it, exe on after he had Special policy Endorsement the and when declarations, fatally is de cuted the not Iowa, of home laws its issued under the documents, policy, All dec fective. three judicially policy the be Nor could State. larations, endorsement, speciál were and reformed, aligned law with Wisconsin and together comprised stapled unit and one 33603 policy When A these facts. under issued. This is not a situation when May, 1951, of the in knew Meehan issued after basic- where a rider the followed. .validity Special was Its Endorsement. policy had issued. unchallenged in Io-wa at the time the In- parties When Iowa contracted. the we think Because the district Bulletin Commissioner issued his striking surance F-2, Special down court erred in the 9, 1951, an- November the dated judg now Endorsement we reverse the concerning such endorse- nouncement Cir., appealed. Jarecki, Fritz 7 v. ment ments, passage: this relevant carried 1951, 445, 448. 189 Furthermore F.2d type this “No of sup further endorsements to find evidence have been unable we porting filing approved De- for this concerning be with finding will 19 numbered Bulletin, of partment the date this alleged by Hawkeye to failure submit after the already that all such endorsements and Special to In Endorsement Iowa its the disapproved on and filewill on stand after Commissioner. surance 5; 1, (Exhibit italics 1951.” December Having and the reached considered regula- added.) final the Furthermore by points parties, and raised merits the the Insurance Commission- of Iowa tion jurisdictional wholly ques- aside from the 22,1952, expressly er, January pro- dated outset, at the con- discussed we now tion : vided judgment appealed that the should clude now that is therefore ordered “It reversed. be n ‘Bulletin 1951, 9, F-2’ of November Judgment reversed. modified, inbe and shall full force as February 15, after on and effect 1952.” SCHNACKENBERG, Judge Circuit 6.) (Exhibit (dissenting). Being opinion judgment persuaded of that the the Whatever the Commis affirmed, purported “public should district court be to the articulate of sioner subsequent to constrained dissent from the policy” of Iowa to the time I am foregoing opinion. Hawkeye policy, its and after the issued