Lloyd’s Insurance

A system of Insurance similar to the English Lloyds, which is carried on in the United States by unincorporated associations of individuals. It originated in connection with marine risks, but has now been extended to other kinds of insurance. The principal features of the system are, that each individual assumes a liability for a specific amount; that attorneys or managers are appointed by a power of attorney authorizing them to be sued; that suits are brought against such attorneys or managers; and that each underwriter is bound by the fundamental agreement to accept the result of such suit. Such action may be maintained against the attorneys in fact; Compton v. Beecher, 17 App. Div. 38, 44 N. Y. Supp. 887; and the agreement is not repugnant to public policy; Stleglltz v. Belding, 20 Misc. 297, 45 N. Y. Supp. 670; it is valid to prevent the institution of separate suits where the attorney is an underwriter; Lawrence v. Schaefer, 19 Misc. 239, 42 N. Y. Supp. 992. One who signs such policy as attorney for the underwriters is a “trustee of an express trust,’’ within New York Code Civ. Proc. § 449; Lawrence v. Schaefer, 19 Misc. 239, 42 N. Y. Supp. 992. Proofs of loss are properly served at the office of the association on > one acting as its attorney, even if irregularly appointed; Ral- 11 V. White, 21 Misc. 285, 47 N. Y. Supp. 197. The provision for simultaneous contribution and making the liability several, not joint, does not prevent the collection -of the full proportion from each where only a portion are served; Mc Allister v. Hoadley, 76 Fed. KXH). Such associations have been held sul)ject to prosecution for unlawfully exercising a public franchise; People v. Loew, 19 Misc. 248, 44 N. Y. Supp. 42; State v. Ackerman, 51 Ohio St. 163, 37 N. E. 828, 24 L. R. A. 298; where the forms of organization, power of attorney, and policy may be found. They are not companies; Com. v. Reinoehl, 1C3 Pa. 287, 29 Atl. 896, 25 L. R. A. 247; State V. Stone, 118 Mo. 388, 24 S. W. 164, 25 L. R. A. 243, 40 Am. St. Rep. 388; Fort v. State, 92 Ga. 8, 18 S. E. 14, 23 L. R. A. 86; and unincorporated persons may be prohibited from being insurers; Com. v. Vrooman, 164 Pa. 306, 30 Atl. 217, 25 L. R. A. 250, 44 Am. St Rep. 603; Arrott v. Walker, 118 Pa. 249, 12 Atl. 280, three judges dissenting.