This is аn appeal by plaintiffs from an order service of summons on defendant insurance company, a foreign corporation not qualified to dо business within this state.
Plaintiffs, residents of the State of Washington, recovered a judgment for personal injuries and damages arising out of an automobile collision in Shasta County against J. F. and Leila Galloway, husband and wife, residents of Colombia, *172 South America, who were insureds of defendant corporation. The defendant corporation failed to pay the judgment, and this action was brought against it under the terms of the policy. Defendant was served by substitute service upon the Secretary of State pursuant to section 6501 of the Corporations Code. It thereafter appeared specially for the purpose of moving to quash the service. The motion was supported by affidavits of one L. H. Walden, defendant’s president, and Michael T. Hennessy, one оf the attorneys who represented defendant in the original proceeding. In opposition to the motion, affidavits were filed by Daniel S. Carlton, attоrney for plaintiffs.
Recently, the reviewing courts of this state, in the cases of
Kneeland
v.
Ethicon Suture Laboratories, Inc.,
In the рresent case the complaint and affidavits upon which the ease was heard show the following uncontradicted facts:
Defendant Trans-Americа Insurance Company is an Alabama corporation, created and existing under the laws of that *173 state; its principal office and place of business is at Montgomery, Alabama; it was and is engaged in the insurance business, including the solicitation and issuance of automobile liability insurance poliсies in at least three states of the United States; it has never qualified to do business in California ; it has written no insurance policies and maintains no office or place of business in this state; it has no agents, jobbers or independent contractors who solicit business for it here; its policyholders operаte motor vehicles in California at various times throughout the year; by the terms of its policies, defendant insures its policyholders, within policy limits, against loss аs a result of claims or actions brought against them for personal injury, death or property damage arising out of automobile accidents occurring anywhere in the continental United States; also under the terms of its policies defendant obligates itself, as a part of its business, td investigate acсidents in which its policyholders are involved within this state or elsewhere, to employ local attorneys, investigators and adjustors for that purpose, tо adjust and negotiate claims, defend actions, and to pay judgments if any arise out of actions against its policyholders in this state; said policies further provide that if judgments should be obtained against the insureds, the judgment creditors may bring an action directly against the company to recover the amount of the judgment; the defendants J. F. and Leila Galloway reside in Colombia, South America, and at the time of the automobile collision here in question were operating a 1954 Ford automobile insured by the defendant insurance company under an automobile insurance policy issued to them in the State of Alabama; in connection with the present action, the defendant’s activities extended from June 29, 1954, to May 6, 1955; during that period of time it employed an аdjustment service agency located in Dunsmuir, California, to investigate the claims arising out of the accident; it settled one claim; it employed attorneys in this state; it engaged a doctor to examine the plaintiff Leona G. McClanahan and engaged a second doctor who testified at the triаl; through its attorneys it had the action removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Northern Division, and through the same attorneys resisted plaintiffs’ motion to remand the cause to the superior court of Shasta County; and defendant’s secretary conferred with and attempted to effect a settlement with plaintiffs’ counsel at his office in Bedding, at which time an offer of $5,000 was made *174 which was refused, as was the second offer of $12,500 which was made through defendant’s counsel.
From the record as summarized, it would appear that the defendant, in retaining investigators, doctors and other persons necessary to properly prepare and defend the case brought by plaintiffs, was doing precisely what it contracted to do on bеhalf of each of its policyholders whether in California or elsewhere within the continental United States. In fact, in the affidavit filed by plaintiffs’ counsel it was alleged, and it is not denied, that many of defendant’s policyholders travel the highways of this state, and that defendant has adjusted and defended numerous eases in California.
It could be said that from the very nature of defendant’s business, the insuring of automobile owners, that whenever it issued a policy of automobilе insurance, the defendant contemplated that the holder thereof might at some time be a user of the highways of this state, subject to all of the hazаrds of such use, and hence knew it would be necessary to come into the courts of this state to assert its rights and defend its obligations under such policies. And in linе with the comment of the court in the International Shoe case, such activities could not be gauged by a little more or a little less than the minimal aсtivity necessary to come withinjfthe rule; that is it would appear to be of small consequence whether 25 of its insureds traveled the highways of this state and all had accidents or a thousand did likewise and only one accident resulted, the present. Again we may note that by the very terms of the policy, it was thе defendant insurance company which, upon notice of the accident, for all practical purposes became a real рarty in interest—it took over the complete control of all aspects of the case from a defense standpoint. In fact, had not the Gаlloways placed the entire case in defendant’s hands to compromise or defend as it saw fit, such action on their part could well have rеsulted in a breach of the contract of insurance. The activities of the defendant under the circumstances shown cannot be gauged, as did the trial court, on the basis of one lawsuit or one visit by a corporate agent, or the fact that the defendant carried on no solicitation in this state.
The order is reversed.
Van Dyke, P. J., and Schottky, J., concurred,