🚀 go-pugleaf

��ࡱ�d4@�

(
 Gee v. International Life Ins. Co



Facts:  Lowell Franklin, a California resident, purchased life insurance form the respondent, an Arizona corporation.  Petitioner sent his premiums to the insurance company in Texas and they mailed him statements.  Franklin died and his mother, petitioner, was denied her claim because the company said that Franklin committed suicide.  Petitioner filed suit in California and won a judgment against Company.  Company refused to pay and petitioner filed suit in Texas.  Texas refused to enforce judgment because they said that it was void under the 14th amend.  

Issue:  Was the Company bound by the judgment of the California Court?

Holding:  The Texas life insurance company is bound by the court�s decision.

Reasoning:  It is sufficient for purposes of due process that the suit was based on a contract which had a substantial connection with New York.  California has a manifest interest in protecting its residents when they enter into contracts.  The cost of a resident to follow an out of state company to file suit would be cost-prohibitive.  Granted that the company will have some inconvenience, but none that violates due process.
��ࡱ�P
P

 Gee v. International Life Ins. Co



Facts:  Lowell Franklin, a California resident, purchased life insurance form the respondent, an Arizona corporation.  Petitioner sent his premiums to the insurance company in Texas and they mailed him statements.  Franklin died and his mother, petitioner, was denied her claim because the company said that Franklin committed suicide.  Petitioner filed suit in California and won a judgment against Company.  Company refused to pay and petitioner filed suit in Texas.  Texas refused to enforce judgment because they said that it was void under the 14th amend.  

Issue:  Was the Company bound by the judgment of the California Court?

Holding:  The Texas life insurance company is bound by the court�s decision.

Reasoning:  It is sufficient for purposes of due process that the suit was based on a contract which had a substantial connection with New York.  California has a manifest interest in protecting its residents when they enter into contracts.  The cost of a resident to follow an out of state company to file suit would be cost-prohibitive.  Granted that the company will have some inconvenience, but none that violates due process.
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������rk Optra plus PS2a
Doda
Dod4@�
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
 Gee v. International Life Ins. Co



Facts:  Lowell Franklin, a California resident, purchased life insurance form the respo
P
ܥe
 Gee v. International Life Ins. Co



Facts:  Lowell Franklin, a California resident, purchased life insurance form the respondent, an Arizona corporation.  Petitioner sent his premiums to the insurance company in Texas and they mailed him statements.  Franklin died and his mother, petitioner, was denied her claim because the company said that Franklin committed suicide.  Petitioner filed suit in California and won a judgment against Company.  Company refused to pay and petitioner filed suit in Texas.  Texas refused to enforce judgment because they said that it was void under the 14th amend.  

Issue:  Was the Company bound by the judgment of the California Court?

Holding:  The Texas life insurance company is bound by the court�s decision.

Reasoning:  It is sufficient for purposes of due process that the suit was based on a contract which had a substantial connection with New York.  California has a manifest interest in protecting its residents when they enter into contracts.  The cost of a resident to follow an out of state company to file suit would be cost-prohibitive.  Granted that the company will have some inconvenience, but none that violates due process.
Mc  (1957)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������a
Doda
Dod