642 N.E.2d 1145 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1994
This case is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an action for declaratory and injunctive relief as it relates to Huntington Life Insurance Agency, Inc.'s application for a life insurance agency license. The license application is currently pending before the Superintendent of the Ohio Department of Insurance. Plaintiffs-appellants, Ohio Association of Life Underwriters, Inc. ("OALU") and Robert M. Roach, filed a verified complaint against Harold T. Duryee, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Ohio Department of Insurance ("superintendent"), defendant-appellee. Huntington Life Insurance Agency, Inc. ("Huntington Life") intervened as a party-defendant.
In their complaint, appellants sought declaration that: (1) the application did not satisfy the "beneficial interest" or the "principal purpose" tests under R.C.
On appeal, appellants raise the following assignments of error:
"First Assignment of Error:
"The lower court was in error in finding no set of facts entitling plaintiffs-appellants to recovery and thereby granting a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civil Rule 12(B)(6).
"Second Assignment of Error:
"The lower court was in error in determining thatIndependent Insurance Agents of Ohio, Inc. v. Fabe (1992),
In their first assignment of error, appellants allege that dismissal was improper because a real controversy exists between the parties and because no other remedy is available. Appellants claim controversy solely from the alleged fact that the superintendent is about to issue a license to Huntington Life and that appellants will suffer from competition as a result. Appellants represent that they have "no right to participate" in the administrative licensure process and that, consequently, they are arguably not a "party" under R.C.
Appellees, on the other hand, allege that appellants are merely intermeddling with the life insurance licensure process. Declaratory judgment, appellees allege, would preempt the superintendent's authority under R.C.
The essential elements for declaratory relief are: (1) a real controversy between the parties; (2) the controversy is justiciable in character; and (3) speedy relief is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties. Burger Brewing Co. v. OhioLiquor Control Comm. (1973),
Appellants allege that Huntington Life's application violates R.C.
"Any person * * * whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a * * * statute * * * may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under such * * * statute * * * and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder."
R.C.
In this declaratory judgment action, appellants do not seek determination of the validity of R.C.
We note also that declaratory relief at this stage of the life insurance application process would preempt the superintendent's statutory authority to make the initial determination regarding licensure. Furthermore, appellate review is provided in R.C.
Appellants' first assignment of error is overruled.
In their second assignment of error, appellants claim that the trial court abused its discretion when it relied uponIndep. Ins. Agents of Ohio, Inc. v. Fabe *536
(1992),
Appellants' second assignment of error is overruled.
Appellants' assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
WHITESIDE, P.J., and BOWMAN, J., concur.