INSURANCE

2093

	159. Taxes, fees, reserves, reports, exami-	Fraternal Beneficiary Associations.
	nations, publication, etc.	180. Defined.
	160. Tax on premiums; exemption.	181. Lodge system defined.
	161. Reinsurance. 162. Resident agent; policy forms.	182. Representative form of government defined.
	163. Dividends on policies.	183. Exemptions.
	164. Impairment of assets; insolvency.	184. Benefits.
	165. Rules for prevention of accidents.	185. Beneficiaries.
	166. Employer and employees may agree	186. Qualifications for membership.
	upon scheme of compensation.	187. Certificate.
	167. Penalties.	188. Funds.
	168. Inconsistent provisions of law re-	189. Deferred payments.
	pealed.	190. Investments.
		191. Distribution of funds.
	Reciprocal Exchanges and Inter-	192. Organization.
	Insurers.	193. Existing corporation, reincorporation.
	169. Reciprocal or inter-insurance con-	194. Mergers and transfers..
	tracts; exemptions.	195. Annual license.
	170. Execution of such contracts.	196. Admission of foreign associations.
	171. Attorney shall file verified declara-	197. Reincorporation of foreign associa-
	tion.	tions.
	172. Service of process.	198. Service of process.
	173. Limit of liability.	199. Place of meeting:
	174. Reserves; impairment of assets.	200. Liability of officers and members.
	175. Annual reports; examinations.	201. Limitation upon power to waive pro-
	176. All domestic corporations authorized	visions of association's laws.
	to exchange contracts of insurance.	202. Benefits exempt from execution.
	177. Certificate of authority.	203. Amendments to Constitution and
	178. Taxes and fees; agents' licenses.	laws.
	179. Penalties.	204. Annual reports.

205. When a New York superintendent of insurance in whom the law of that state
vested a discretion to refuse a foreign insurance company a license, unjustifiably re-
fuses such license to a Maryland company, the Maryland insurance commissioner, as a
measure of retaliation under this section, is justified in refusing a license to a similar
New York company, although such company had complied with the requirements of
art. 23, sec. 182, An. Code, 1912. Design and operation of this section. Talbott v.
Fidelity, etc., Co., 74 Md. 541.

This section referred to in construing art. 23, sec. 182, An. Code, 1912—see notes
thereto (this footnote). Oland v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 69 Md. 251.

For a case dealing with the act of 1878, ch. 106, sec. 36, see State v. Insurance Co. of
North America, 55 Md. 494.

Cited but not construed in Metropolitan Ins. Co. v. Dempsey, 72 Md. 293.

213. Statements held material. Query whether a statement was a misrepresenta-
tion or untrue statement of the facts as they existed when the policy was applied for.
Reference to the future. See notes to art. 101, sec. 15. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v.
Taylor, 132 Md. 519.

Innocent and immaterial misstatements of fact in application for health insurance
do not avoid the policy; jury questions; burden of proof; estoppel. Prayers. Evidence.
Casualty Co. v. Schwartz, 143 Md. 457.

Whether misstatements in the application for the insurance are false and material to
the risk, and whether they are made in bad faith, are ordinarily questions of fact for
the jury, but where the evidence is clear and uncontradicted, the court may rule as a
matter of law. Evidence of good faith and fraud. Object of this section. Maryland
Casualty Co. v. Gehrmann, 96 Md. 648; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Millar, 113 Md. 693;
Monahan v. Mutual Ins. Co., 103 Md. 156; Mutual Ins. Co. v. Mullan, 107 Md. 463.

This section is remedial and to be liberally construed. It is applicable to a contract
of insurance made in Maryland by a mutual insurance company of the state of New
York, although the contract provides that it is subject to the charter of the company
and the laws of New York. The burden of proof that misrepresentations or untrue
statements were made and that they were material to the risk or were not made in
good faith, is upon the insurance company. Proper prayer under this section. Mutual
Life Ins. Co. v. Mullan, 107 Md. 460.

There is no occasion, in a case of actual fraud, to extend by judicial construction
application of clause providing for indefeasibility. Life Insurance policy—rescission.
Steigler v. Eureka Life Ins. Co., 146 Md. 641.