Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:07:34.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The First Liability Insurance Cartel in America, 1896–1906

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2011

Sachin S. Pandya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article studies the rise and fall of the first liability insurance cartel in the United States. In 1886, insurance companies in America began selling liability insurance for personal injury accidents, primarily to cover business tort liability for employee accidents at work and non-employee injuries occasioned by their business operations. In 1896, the leading liability insurers agreed to fix premium rates and share information on policyholder losses. In 1906, this cartel fell apart.

Type
Articles
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , May 2011 , pp. 375 - 417
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Masters, Capt. A.W., “Policy Forms in Liability Insurance,” The Standard (Extra Number) (1894): xxviGoogle Scholar; see also Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Merrill, 29 N.E. 529, 529–30 (Mass. 1892) (generally describing the various types of liability insurance policies sold by the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation).

2. See Baranoff, Dalit, “A Policy Of Cooperation: The Cartelisation of American Fire Insurance, 1873–1906,” Financial History Review 10 (2003): 119–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schneiberg, Marc, “Political and Institutional Conditions for Governance by Association: Private Order and Price Controls in American Fire Insurance,” Politics & Society 27 (1999): 67–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wandel, William Hamlin, The Control of Competition in Fire Insurance (Lancaster: The Art Print. Co., 1935)Google Scholar; and Riegel, Robert, “Rate-Making Organizations in Fire Insurance,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 70 (March 1917): 172–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Great Britain and Australia, see Pearson, Robin, Insuring the Industrial Revolution: Fire Insurance in Great Britain, 1700–1850 (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2004), 149–56Google Scholar; and Keneley, Monica, “The Origins of Formal Collusion in Australian Fire Insurance 1870–1920,” Australian Economic History Review 42 (2002): 54–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Early life insurers in the United States appear to have pooled information to better estimate mortality risk. Murphy, Sharon Ann, Investing in Life: Insurance in Antebellum America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 2010), 241–54Google Scholar.

3. Fligstein, Neil, The Transformation of Corporate Control (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990), 38–52, 317–19Google Scholar; Lamoreaux, Naomi R., The Great Merger Movement in American Business, 1895–1904 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. Fligstein, Transformation, 59–74, 317–21; and Bittlingmayer, George, “Did Antitrust Policy Cause the Great Merger Wave?,” Journal of Law & Economics 28 (1985): 77–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But see Sklar, Martin J., The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1890–1916 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 159–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Smythe, Donald J., “The Supreme Court and the Trusts: Antitrust and the Foundations of Modern American Business Regulation from Knight to Swift,” U.C. Davis Law Review 39 (2005): 85–147Google Scholar. On state failure in restricting horizontal mergers, see Hovenkampf, Herbert, Enterprise and American Law, 1836–1937 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991), 241–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and McCurdy, Charles W., “The Knight Sugar Decision of 1895 and The Modernization of American Corporation Law, 1869–1903,” Business History Review 53 (1979): 336–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On state statutory law governing mergers and inter-corporate stock holding, see Roy, William G., Socializing Capital: The Rise of the Large Industrial Corporation in America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 144–75Google Scholar; and Chausovksy, Jonathan, “State Regulation of Corporations in the Late Nineteenth Century: A Critique of the New Jersey Thesis,” Studies in American Political Development 21 (2007): 57–64Google Scholar.

5. See Berk, Gerald, Louis D. Brandeis and the Making of Regulated Competition, 1900–1932 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scranton, Philip, Endless Novelty: Specialty Production and American Industrialization, 1865–1925 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997)Google Scholar; and Berk, Gerald and Schneiberg, Marc, “Varieties in Capitalism, Varieties of Association: Collaborative Learning in American Industry, 1900 to 1925,” Politics & Society 33 (2005): 46–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. Berk, Louis D. Brandeis, 12.

7. An example is the influence of receivership law on the capital structure of American railroads. See, for example, Hansen, Bradley, “The People's Welfare and the Origins of Corporate Reorganization: The Wabash Receivership Reconsidered,” Business History Review 74 (2000): 377–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Tufano, Peter, “Business Failure, Judicial Intervention, and Financial Innovation: Restructuring U.S. Railroads in the Nineteenth Century,” Business History Review 71 (1997): 1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869); United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944); Boris I. Bittker and Brannon P. Denning, Bittker on the Regulation of Interstate and Foreign Commerce (Gaithersburg: Aspen Law & Business, 1999), § 3.08[A] at 3–48 (discussing Paul's progeny during this period).

9. Act of July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209.

10. Act of March 9, 1945, ch. 20, § 2(b), 59 Stat. 33, 34 (Sherman Act and other specified federal statutes “shall be applicable to the business of insurance to the extent such business is not regulated by state law”).

11. “Legality of combinations or agreements between insurance companies or insurance agents,” American Law Reports Annotated 21 (1922): 543–57 (collecting cases)Google Scholar. For case studies, see Grant, H. Roger, Insurance Reform: Consumer Action in the Progressive Era (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1979), 71–89 (Missouri, Kansas, and Texas)Google Scholar; and Piott, Steven J., The Anti-Monopoly Persuasion: Popular Resistance to the Rise of Big Business in the Midwest (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1985), 37–51, 136–37 (Missouri)Google Scholar.

12. For a static Bertrand model that accounts for insurer capacity uncertainty but assumes that buyers can fully calculate insolvency risk, see Rees, Ray, Gravelle, Hugh, and Wambach, Achim, “Regulation of Insurance Markets,” Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance 24 (1999): 65–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For possible causes of change in liability risk between estimation and cost realization, see Baker, Tom, “Insuring Liability Risk,” Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance 29 (2004): 128–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. For theory consistent with this expectation, see Raith, Michael, “A General Model of Information Sharing in Oligopoly,” Journal of Economic Theory 71 (1996): 267–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vives, Xavier, “Trade Association Disclosure Rules, Incentives to Share Information, and Welfare,” Rand Journal of Economics 21 (1990): 411–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gal-Or, Esther, “Information Transmission: Cournot and Bertrand Equilibria,” Review of Economic Studies 53 (1986): 91–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. Kimball, Spencer, Insurance and Public Policy: A Study in the Legal Implementation of Social and Economic Public Policy, Based on Wisconsin Records, 1835–1959 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1960), 150–51Google Scholar (early development of unearned premium reserve requirement in Wisconsin for fire and marine insurance companies); and Oviatt, F.C., “Historical Study of Fire Insurance in the United States,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 26 (1905): 164 (early unearned premium reserve requirements on fire insurers in Massachusetts and New York)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. On forming producer associations to signal product quality in commodity markets, see Marette, Stéphan and Crespi, John M., “Can Quality Certification Lead to Stable Cartels?,” Review of Industrial Organization 23 (2003): 43–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16. “Death of the Pioneer of Employers' Liability Insurance in the United States,” Weekly Underwriter, December 10, 1898, 331; and Robinson, Harry Perry, The Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation Ltd., 1880–1930 (London: Waterlow & Sons Ltd., 1930), 61–63Google Scholar.

17. De Leon, E. W., “Liability Insurance – Its Origin and Growth,” The Spectator, April 26, 1894, 253Google Scholar.

18. Calverly, Raymond N., “The Background of the Casualty and Bonding Business in the United States,” Insurance Counsel Journal 6 (October 1939): 63Google Scholar.

19. Thirty-Seventh Annual Report of the Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York: Parts II, III, and IV. Life, Casualty, Title, Credit, Mortgage Guarantee and Assessment Insurance (Albany: James B. Lyon, 1896), 244.

20. See Moore, W.F., “Liability Insurance,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 26 (1905): 325–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Masters, A.W., paper on Liability Insurance, excerpted in Weekly Underwriter, September 9, 1899, 178Google Scholar; and Cowles, Walter G., “The Relation of Payroll to Certain Liability Lines,” Weekly Underwriter, February 18, 1905, 143Google Scholar.

21. Otis, Stanley L., “The Bureau of Liability Insurance Statistics,” The Spectator, November 12, 1908, 260Google Scholar.

22. Harris Brockway Johnson recalled that he created the first liability insurance manual for Travelers Insurance Company at the behest of Travelers President James G. Batterson: “[Batterson] immediately said, ‘Harry, we must have a manual.’ ‘Why?’ I asked.' ‘The only reason the other companies have them is to show them and then cut the rates, making the prospect believe he's getting a bargain.’ ‘All right,’ he said, ‘we shall do the same.’ So I made up the first Liability manual of The Travelers, and believe me I made the figures high enough to allow for substantial cuts.” Johnson, Harris Brockway, “Memories of a Remarkable Man,” The Travelers Beacon 21 (Jan.–Feb. 1940): 3Google Scholar.

23. Dunham, Sylvester C., “Liability Insurance,” in Yale Insurance Lectures, vol. 2 (Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor Press, 1904), 244–45Google Scholar; Moore, W. F., “Employers' Liability Insurance,” in Insurance: “A Text-Book”: A Compilation of the Addresses Delivered Before the Twenty-Ninth Session of the National Convention of Insurance Commissioners, Held at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, September 13–16, 1898, ed. Fricke, William A. (Milwaukee: Published for the National Convention of Insurance Commissioners, 1898), 955Google Scholar; and Blanchard, Ralph H., Liability and Compensation Insurance (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1917), 265–67Google Scholar.

24. Report of the Employers' Liability Commission of the State of Illinois (Chicago: Stromberg, Allen & Co., 1910), 13–14Google Scholar; and Penman, William Jr., “On the Valuation of the Liabilities of an Insurance Company under its Employers' Liability Contracts,” Journal of the Institute of Actuaries 45 (1911): 137–38 (comment by W.R. Strong)Google Scholar.

25. “The Condition of the Liability Insurance Companies,” The Spectator, October 31, 1895: 204Google Scholar.

26. Letter to Field Agents, Liability Lines, Fidelity and Casualty Company, dated February 1, 1892 (capitalization and underline in original), in Box 2, Folder 1, Seward Papers, New York Historical Society, New York, NY.

27. “Cut Rate Competition,” Monthly Bulletin of the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York 6 (April 1901): 56Google Scholar.

28. “The Condition of the Liability Insurance Companies,” The Spectator, October 31, 1895, 204Google Scholar.

29. Meeting of Casualty Companies, The Standard, February 17, 1894, 169; and Weekly Underwriter, February 17, 1894, 109.

30. “Employers' Liability Tariff Movement Blocked,” The Standard, March 24, 1894, 315Google Scholar.

31. Baranoff, “A Policy of Cooperation,” 119–36.

32. Strong, William R., “The Growth of Accident and Employers' Liability Insurance in Great Britain,” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on Actuaries: Held in New York, under the auspices of the Actuarial Society of America, August 31 to September 5, 1903 (New York: Actuarial Society of America, 1904): 685Google Scholar; Weekly Underwriter, May 30, 1896, 363; Cockerell, H.A.L. and Green, Edwin, The British Insurance Business: A Guide to its History & Records, 2nd ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 88Google Scholar.

33. See, for example, Batterson to Geo. M. Endicott, October 2, 1894, Vol. 2, President's Letters, p. 593; Scrapbooks, Letterbooks, & Miscellaneous, Box 4; President's Interests; Executive, Record Group 2; Travelers Insurance Company, Hartford, CT. Hereafter, PL2 refers to items from this bound volume of letters.

34. Weekly Underwriter, June 29, 1895, 455; “Liability Companies' Agreement Receives a Set Back,” The Standard, July 20, 1895, 57; Weekly Underwriter, August 17, 1895, 79; Batterson to Geo. M. Endicott, Esq. Chairman, etc., dated August 16, 1895, PL2, p. 724; “Liability Insurance,” The Spectator, July 2, 1896, 2; Weekly Underwriter, August 24, 1895, 87; and Weekly Underwriter, September 21, 1895, 134.

35. Batterson to Geo. F. Seward, Esq. Prest., Fidelity & Casualty Co. N.Y., January 3, 1896, PL2, p. 816; and Batterson to Seward, January 9, 1896, PL2, p. 819–20.

36. Notes of George F. Seward at 1, enclosed with G. Seward to R.R. Dearden, April 3, 1895, Box 2, Folder 9, Seward Papers, New York Historical Society.

37. “Harmonious Meeting of Liability Companies,” The Standard, February 29, 1896, 235Google Scholar; The Spectator, March 12, 1896, 145; and Weekly Underwriter, March 7, 1896, 156.

38. Robinson, Employers' Liability, 66; and Lott, Edson S., Pioneers of American Liability Insurance (New York: Montross & Clarke Co., Inc., 1938), 104Google Scholar.

39. Quoted in “Favorable View of Liability Agreement,” The Standard, March 7, 1896, 250Google Scholar.

40. Conference Liability Manual (1896), reprinted in The Insurance Year Book 1896–97: Life and Miscellaneous (New York: Spectator Co., 1896), 389Google Scholar.

41. The Spectator, September 3, 1896, 101.

42. Weekly Underwriter, October 23, 1897, 231; and “New Liability Rates Promulgated,” The Standard, October 23, 1897, 416.

43. Otis, “The Bureau,” 261.

44. “Agreement Reached: Liability Underwriters Agree Upon Rates, Policy Forms, Etc.,” Insurance Press, March 4, 1896, 1Google Scholar.

45. “Liability Insurance Items,” The Spectator, April 30, 1896, 245Google Scholar; Weekly Underwriter, March 14, 1896, 174.

46. Conference Liability Manual (1896), reprinted in The Insurance Year Book 1896–97: Life and Miscellaneous (New York: Spectator Co., 1896): 390Google Scholar. These terms did not change substantially over the life of the Liability Conference, except that an agent of a Conference company could place a risk with a non-Conference company if the home office of that company gave written consent. See Manual of Liability Insurance: Rules and Rates, October, 1898 (n.d.), in The Insurance Year Book 1902–03: Life and Miscellaneous (New York: Spectator Co., 1902), 331Google Scholar; and De Leon, Edwin W., compiler, Manual of Liability Insurance Containing the Rules, Instructions, Rates and Classifications adopted by the Conference of Liability Companies and amended to January 1, 1905 (New York: Spectator Co., 1909), 31Google Scholar.

47. “The Liability Situation,” The Spectator, October 17, 1898, 185Google Scholar (quoting letter from Stewart Marks).

48. “Liability Conference Materially Strengthened,” The Standard, September 12, 1896, 231Google Scholar.

49. “Will Support General Liability Agreement,” The Standard, May 2, 1896, 464Google Scholar; see also Weekly Underwriter, May 2, 1896, 291–92 (Boston, New York); Weekly Underwriter, May 9, 1896, 307 (Philadelphia); and “New Liability Association for New Jersey,” The Standard, February 6, 1897, 164Google Scholar.

50. “Reduced Liability Rates to be Promulgated,” The Standard, May 23, 1896, 542 (New York Liability Association); The Standard, May 30, 1896, 574 (same); and “The New Liability Rates,” The Standard, June 13, 1896, 612.

51. “Liability Conference,” Monthly Bulletin of Fidelity & Casualty Co. 9 (December 1904): 181.

52. “Liability Rates,” Monthly Bulletin of Fidelity & Casualty Co. 9 (December 1904): 181.

53. Weekly Underwriter, December 10, 1904, 411.

54. De Leon, Edwin W., compiler, Manual of Liability Insurance Containing the Rules, Instructions, Rates and Classifications adopted by the Conference of Liability Companies and amended to January 1, 1905 (New York: Spectator Co., 1909)Google Scholar.

55. “Miscellaneous Items,” The Spectator, September 21, 1905, 167; Weekly Underwriter, September 16, 1905, 188; “Decide to Continue the Liability Conference,” The Standard, September 16, 1905, 259; and “Liability Conference,” Insurance Press, September 20, 1905, 14.

56. “Action By Liability Conference,” The Spectator, March 29, 1906, 181; Weekly Underwriter, March 24, 1906, 217; Weekly Underwriter, April 14, 1906, 275; “Liability Conference Takes Important Action,” The Standard, March 24, 1906, 289; and “President Stone on the Liability Conference,” The Standard, April 14, 1906, 356.

57. “Liability Conference Gains Two New Members,” The Standard, August 4, 1906, 98.

58. “Liability Underwriters,” The Spectator, January 9, 1908, 21.

59. High market concentration can imply monopoly profits, because collusion is easier with a relatively small number of firms, but high market concentration may also occur because some firms are more efficient, and therefore charge lower prices and reap higher profits, than their rivals. See Choi, Byeongyong Paul and Weiss, Mary A., “An Empirical Investigation of Market Structure, Efficiency, and Performance in Property-Liability Insurance,” Journal of Risk and Insurance 72 (2005): 635–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar (testing both hypotheses and finding support for efficiency hypothesis).

60. Weekly Underwriter, November 22, 1902, 293.

61. Weekly Underwriter, December 6, 1902, 316; and “Liability Situation—Standard's Withdrawal Discussed With Mr. Maybury and Others,” Insurance Press, November 26, 1902, 1.

62. “Liability Conference Loses Detroit Company,” The Standard, November 21, 1902, 482.

63. “Employers Liability Conference,” The Spectator, November 3, 1904, 229; “Employers' Withdraws From Liability Compact,” The Standard, October 28, 1904, 409; and Weekly Underwriter, October 29, 1904, 293, 296.

64. Letter to the Editor, “Cut Rates in Liability Rates,” The Spectator, April 14, 1898, 201 (authored by “Liability Underwriter”).

65. “Liability Conference Adjourns,” The Standard, May 7, 1898, 531; and “President Stone on Liability Competition,” The Standard, December 24, 1898, 670.

66. Batterson to George F. Seward, dated October 7, 1898, Vol. 3, President's Letters, p. 531; Scrapbooks, Letterbooks, & Miscellaneous, Box 4; President's Interests; Executive, Record Group 2; Travelers Insurance Company, Hartford, CT. Hereafter, PL3 refers to items from this bound volume of letters.

67. J. Batterson to E.W. DeLeon, dated August 6, 1898, PL3, p. 391; and J. Batterson to E.W. DeLeon, August 8, 1898, PL3, p. 393.

68. Weekly Underwriter, September 3, 1898, 121; and “Notes of Insurance Interests,” New York Times, September 4, 1898, 20.

69. J. Batterson, to W.C. Maybury et al. (cc: Employers Liability, Fidelity & Casualty, London & Guarantee, U.S. Casualty, Union Casualty), dated September 21, 1898, PL3, p. 476.

70. Batterson to G.M. Endicott, Sept. 24, 1898, PL3, p. 479. The term “new comer” is a reference to the Maryland Casualty Company's hiring away of the Baltimore agent for The Standard Life and Accident Co., of which W.C. Maybury was president at the time. Batterson to Geo. F. Seward Esq., Prest., Fidelity & Casualty Co., October 7, 1898, PL3, p. 531 (referring to how Maryland Casualty President Stone “hired Standard's agent”).

71. Batterson to G.M. Endicott, September 24, 1898, PL3, p. 480.

72. Batterson to C.P. Ellerbe Esq., Prest., September 26, 1898, PL3, p. 484.

73. J. Batterson to W.C. Maybury, Esq., Detroit, MI, September 26, 1898, PL3, p. 488; see also Batterson to G.M. Endicott Esq., Chairman &c., September 26,1898, PL3, p. 490 (“Why can we not send our experience on classified risks to the Bureau, simply giving the amount insured and the loss thereunder to find the pure premium needed to carry the risk, and stop there, so far as rates are concerned.”).

74. Batterson to J.B. Pirtle Esq., State Agent, Louisville, KY, September 28, 1898, PL3, p. 511–12; see also Batterson to Horace W. Power Esq., State Agent, Cleveland OH, September 28, 1898, PL3, p. 503 (“Until further instructions are received from this Office, you may govern yourself by the old Manual. We shall try to save our desirable risks from the Maryland Company on the best terms we can make.”).

75. Weekly Underwriter, October 8, 1898, 211.

76. Batterson to W.C. Maybury, Esq., Managing Director, Detroit, MI, September 26, 1898, PL3, p. 487.

77. “Liability Companies Hold Together,” The Standard, October 15, 1898, 427.

78. Reprinted in “The Liability Situation,” The Spectator, October 27, 1898, 185.

79. Batterson to Geo. F. Seward, October 29, 1898, PL3, p. 547.

80. “Death of the Pioneer of Employers' Liability Insurance in the United States,” Weekly Underwriter, December 10, 1898, 331.

81. “Business of the Liability Conference,” The Standard, December 24, 1898, 662.

82. Batterson to George F. Seward, October 11, 1899, PL3, p. 822–23.

83. Batterson to A.W. Masters, October 13, 1899, PL3, p. 825–26.

84. Batterson to George F. Seward, October 14, 1899, PL3, p. 834–35.

85. Batterson to John T. Stone, President, October 3, 1899, PL3, p. 810–11.

86. Batterson to Stone, October 6, 1899, PL3, p. 817.

87. Batterson to Geo. F. Seward, Chairman, October 11, 1899, PL3, p. 822.

88. Batterson to A.W. Masters, October 13, 1899, PL3, p. 825.

89. “Maryland Casualty Joins Liability Compact,” The Standard, Nov. 18, 1899, 477. For the terms and conditions of entry, see Memorandum of J.G. Batterson & Jno. T. Stone, October 27, 1899, PL3, p. 868.

90. Tirole, Jean, The Theory of Industrial Organization (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1988), 245–53Google Scholar.

91. Batterson to Stewart Marks, July 7, 1898, PL3, p. 367; and Batterson to John T. Stone, October 13, 1899, with attached copy of special rate request from Travelers' agent, PL3, p. 829–30; see also “Liability Compact's Rule on Special Rates,” The Standard, December 9, 1899, 542.

92. Batterson to E.W. DeLeon, August 5, 1898, PL3, p. 390; and Batterson to DeLeon, August 8, 1898, PL3, p. 394.

93. Aetna Life Insurance Co., Accident & Liability Dept., “‘Special Rates’ or ‘Cut Rates’: A Distinction Without A Difference,” Monthly Letter to Our Agents, Oct. 1904, Aetna Insurance Co., Hartford, CT.

94. Batterson to Stewart Marks Esq., Chief of Bureau, October 28, 1898, PL3, p. 542; and Batterson to C.P. Ellerbe, Esq., Prest., Union Casualty & Surety Co., November 3, 1898, PL3, p. 551.

95. Batterson to A.W. Masters, April 12, 1900; Vol. 4, President's Letters, p. 51–52; Scrapbooks, Letterbooks, & Miscellaneous, Box 4; President's Interests; Executive, Record Group 2; Travelers Insurance Company, Hartford, CT. Hereafter, PL4 refers to record items from this bound volume of letters.

96. Wilson, Mark R., “Gentlemanly Price-Fixing and its Limits: Collusion and Competition in the U.S. Explosives Industry during the Civil War Era,” Business History Review 77 (2003): 216–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Genesove, David and Mullin, Wallace P., “Rules, Communication, and Collusion: Narrative Evidence from the Sugar Institute Case,” American Economic Review 91 (2001): 393CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

97. J. Batterson to W.C. Maybury, Esq., September 26, 1898, PL3, p. 486.

98. See, for example, Address of E.C. Irwin, President, National Board of Fire Underwriters, in Chicago Conference On Trusts: Speeches, Debates, Resolutions, List of Delegates, Committees, Etc.; Held September 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 1899 (Chicago: Civic Federation of Chicago, 1900), 438, 450Google Scholar.

99. “The Alleged Trust in Liability Insurance,” The Spectator, April 29, 1897, 209 (quoting Loper as stating: “‘I am fighting the insurance trust, and the trust is trying to destroy my company.’”).

100. Seward, George F., “Liability Insurance,” in The Insurance Year Book. 1897–8 [Life and Miscellaneous] (New York: Spectator Co., 1897), 237–38Google Scholar. For similar arguments, see “The Alleged Trust in Liability Insurance,” The Spectator, April 29, 1897, 209; and “The Liability Conference,” The Standard, May 8, 1897, 514.

101. Batterson to Stewart Marks, Esq., Chief, Bureau of Statistics & Arbitration, October 11, 1897, PL3, p. 88–89.

102. “Statutes and Digested Decisions of Federal, State, and Territorial Law Relating to Trusts and Industrial Combinations,” prepared by Jeremiah W. Jenks, Expert Agent, in Industrial Commission, Trusts and Industrial Combinations, H.R. Doc. 476, 56th Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1900), vol. 2, pt. 1, pp. 5–264; Laws on Trusts and Monopolies (Washington: Government Printing Office, rev. ed. 1914), 41–361; and Hobbs, Clarence W., “State Regulation of Insurance Rates,” Proceedings of the Casualty Actuarial Society 11 (1925): 227–63 (digest of state statutes affecting insurance)Google Scholar.

103. Act of March 2, 1889, ch. 257, § 1, 1889 Kan. Sess. Laws 389, 389 (covering efforts to “control the cost or rate of insurance”); and Act of —, 1897, ch. 79, § 1, cl. 3, 5, 1897 Neb. Laws 347, 347–48 (covering combinations “[t]o prevent competition in insurance, either life, fire, accident, or any other kind”).

104. American Fire Insurance Co. v. State, 22 So. 99, 103–04 (Miss. 1897) (fire insurance rate-making association was effort to control a “business” under state antitrust statute); and Beechley v. Mulville, 70 N.W. 107, 109 (Iowa 1897) (insurance is “commodity” under 1890 state antitrust statute).

105. See Aetna Insurance Co. v. Commonwealth, 51 S.W. 624, 626 (Ky. 1899) (right to enter into an insurance contract is not included in the word “property”); Queens Insurance Co. v. State, 24 S.W. 397, 401 (Tex. 1893) (fire insurance not covered by terms “trade”, “commerce,” or “commodity”), abrogated by Act of April 30, 1895, ch. 83, 1895 Tex. Gen. Laws 112, 113–14; see also Biennial Report of the Attorney General of the State of Illinois (Springfield: Phillips Bros., 1899), 228Google Scholar (opinion, dated October 8, 1897, that state antitrust act of 1891 “does not apply to insurance companies,” where that act covered efforts to fix the price of “any article of merchandise or commodity” or to limit the quantity of any “article, commodity or merchandise” sold in the state, Act of June 11, 1891, § 1, 1891 Ill. Laws 206, 207). In Ohio, see Runck v. Cloud, 8 Ohio N.P. 436, 1901 WL 19368 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1901) (insurance not covered by Ohio antitrust statute); State ex rel. Taylor v. Ross, 16 Ohio Dec. 704, 1906 WL 1575 (Ct. Common Pleas 1906) (fire insurance covered by Ohio antitrust statute) (decided May 5, 1906); and State v. Bovee, 17 Ohio Dec. 663, 1907 WL 719 (Ct. Common Pleas 1907) (insurance not covered by Ohio antitrust statute).

106. People v. Aachen & Munich Fire Insurance Company of Germany, 126 Ill. App. 636 (4th Dist. 1905) (reversing demurrer in a suit by the Illinois Attorney General against 110 fire insurance companies for common law conspiracy to fix fire insurance rates in St. Clair and Madison counties); and Metzger v. Cleveland & Adams (Ind. Superior Ct., Marion County, decided April 1884), in Insurance Law Journal 28 (1899): 176–82Google Scholar. But see Continental Ins. Co. v. Board of Fire Underwriters of the Pacific, 67 F. 310, 322 (C.C.N.D. Cal. 1895) (fire underwriters board not common law conspiracy, because board formed for “trade reasons, in which the co-operation of all companies was undoubtedly desired,” not specifically to intermeddle in plaintiff's business).

107. Act of May 4, 1885, 1885 Ohio Laws 231 (amended by Act of May 1, 1891, 1891 Ohio Laws 485–86); Act of Aug. 29, 1885, ch. 93, § 1, 1885 N.H. Laws 289, 289; Act of March 28, 1893, ch. 285, 1893 Me. Acts 339 (repealed by Act of Feb. 18, 1895, c. 26, 1895 Me. Acts 24); Act of —, 1897, ch. 81, § 1, 1897 Neb. Laws 354; Act of March 1, 1898, ch. 644, § 1, 1898 Va. Acts 683, 683 (effective July 1, 1898); Act of March 7, 1899, No. 39, § 1, 1899 S.C. Acts 59, 59; Act of March 2, 1900, ch. 680, 1899–00 Va. Laws 718; Act of July 11, 1900, No. 110, 1900 La. Laws 172; Act of March 9, 1903, ch. 158, 1903 S.D. Laws 183; Act of March 4, 1905, ch. 424, 1905 N.C. Laws 429; Act of April 17, 1905, ch. 479, § 1, 1905 Tn. Laws 1019, 1019. A few covered fire and other types of property insurance. Act of April 3, 1896, ch. 22, § 1, 1896 Iowa Laws 31; and Act of March 13, 1897, ch. 65, § 9, 1897 Wash. Sess. Laws 105, 110. Two more states covered fire, marine, and marine and inland insurance companies. Act of June 28, 1887, No. 285, §§ 1–2, 1887 Mich. Pub. Acts 384, 384–85; and Act of April 27, 1897, ch. 356, 1897 Wis. Sess. Laws 908. Excerpts of some of these statutes appear in “Anti-Compact Laws,” Hayden's Annual Cyclopedia of Insurance in the United States 1908–1909 (Hartford: Insurance Journal Co., 1909), 30–43Google Scholar. Excluded here are provisions that were part of or added to antitrust statutes.

108. Act of Oct. 21, 1891, No. 745, § 1, 1891 Ga. Laws 206 (unlawful for “any insurance company or companies” to enter into arrangement with “any other insurance company or companies . . . for purpose of, or that may have tendency or effect of, preventing or lessening competition in the business of insurance transacted in this state”); and Act of Feb. 18, 1897, 1897 Ala. Laws 1428 (providing policyholder to recover, in event of loss or damage, an additional twenty-five percent of the actual loss upon proving that the insurer, at the time of the policy or before trial, was “in any way connected” with premium rate-fixing).

109. People v. Aachen & Munich Fire Insurance Company of Germany, 126 Ill. App. 636 (4th Dist. 1905) (opinion filed September 18, 1905). Petition for rehearing was denied on February 28, 1906, less than a month before the Conference's end as a cartel. Ibid.

110. “A Big Scoop By the Maryland Casualty,” United States Review, September 7, 1899, 157; see also “A Deal Completed: Western Business Absorbed by the Maryland Casualty Company,” The Sun (Baltimore), September 2, 1899, 12Google Scholar; and “Insurance Companies Unite: The Maryland Casualty and the Union Casualty of St. Louis,” New York Times, September 3, 1899, 12.

111. “Big Insurance Deal Is Consummated: Union Casualty Company of St. Louis Sells Its Unexpired Liability Risks,” St. Louis Republic, September 2, 1899, pt. II, 1. When asked whether it struck the deal to avoid antitrust prosecution, company general manager Theodore Gaty reportedly replied: “‘That is a question I do not care to answer.’” Ibid. At least three midwestern newspapers based their own stories on the report in the St. Louis Republic. See “Dodging Anti-Trust Law: Union Casualty Company of St. Louis Transfers Business to a Maryland Corporation,” Morning World-Herald, September 2, 1899, 2 (Omaha newspaper); “Takes the Cash Along: Casualty Company Executive Departs for Fear of Prosecution,” Duluth News Tribune, September 2, 1899, 1; and “Big Insurance Deal: Brought About by Operation of the Missouri Anti-Trust Law—Nature of the Transaction,” Dallas Morning News, September 2, 1899, 3; see also New York Times, September 3, 1899, 12 (“Fear that Attorney General Crow would institute proceedings against the Union Casualty Company under the anti-trust laws of Missouri is the ascribed cause of the deal between the Union and Maryland Casualty Companies.”). But see “A Big Scoop By the Maryland Casualty,” United States Review, September 7, 1899, 157 (“Fears that the Attorney-General of Missouri would proceed against the Union for violation of the anti-trust laws is one of the motives assigned by rumor as the reason for the re-insurance. There is not much credence put in this, however.”).

112. For Missouri, see Piott, Anti-Monopoly, 37–51. For Arkansas, see Act of March 6, 1899, Act XLI, § 1, 1899 Ark. Acts 50, 50–55; “No Insurance in Arkansas: Under the Anti-Trust Law 63 Companies Are Sued for $315,000 Each and Are Taking No More Risks,” New York Times, April 1, 1899, 2; and State v. Lancashire Fire Ins. Co., 51 S.W. 633 (Ark. 1899).

113. Batterson to Geo. F. Seward Esq., Chairman &c., April 12, 1899, PL3, p. 639.

114. Batterson to Seward, January 15, 1900, PL3, p. 961; see also Batterson to Marks, January 18, 1900, PL3, p. 963; and Batterson to Stone, January 27, 1900 PL3, p. 972.

115. James G. Batterson, President, to J.G. Batterson, Jr., Gen. Mgr., Travelers Ins. Co. N.Y., December 13, 1899, PL3, p. 927–28.

116. “Liability Conference in a Protracted Session,” The Standard, March 3, 1900, 13.

117. “Liability Rates Are No Longer Mandatory,” The Standard, March 10, 1900, 11.

118. Batterson to Stewart Marks, April 11, 1900, PL4, p. 47.

119. Batterson to Geo. F. Seward, April 14, 1900, PL4, p. 54.

120. Batterson to Seward, August 18, 1900, PL4, p. 169.

121. Batterson to Seward, August 25, 1900, PL4, p. 178.

122. “Michigan's Insurance Supervision Exposed: How the Insurance Commissioner Makes Examinations,” Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin, September 21, 1900, 1 (quoting statement of Batterson, which includes itemized bill of expenses, dated September 13, 1900); and “Travelers Examined: Another Raid on the Insurance Company,” Hartford Courant, September 22, 1900, 5 (same).

123. “Mr. Seward on Insurance Examinations,” letter from Geo. F. Seward to editor, dated September 22, 1900, in Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin, September 25, 1900, 4.

124. “Mr. Batterson Replies to Mr. Seward,” Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin, September 26, 1900, 9 (letter to editor, dated September 25, 1900).

125. Batterson to Stewart Marks Esq., Actuary, &c., September 25, 1900, PL4, p. 197.

126. George F. Seward to Hon. W.C. Maybury, Standard Life & Accident Co., September 27, 1900, in Seward Papers, New York Historical Society, Box 4, Folder 10. On October 6, 1900, the Standard announced the news that Travelers had left the “Liability Compact,” pointing to Seward's reference to Batterson as a bull in a china shop as “the chief reason of [sic] the rupture,” but also mentioning Batterson's concern about the special rating practice among Conference members. “Travelers Quits Liability Compact After All,” The Standard, October 6, 1900, 336.

127. “Travelers' ‘Grand Old Man’ Is Dead,” The Standard, September 21, 1901, 251; and “James G. Batterson: Death Came at Early Hour To-day,” The Hartford Courant, September 18, 1901, 1.

128. John Stone, President, Maryland Casualty Company, to Mr. S.C. Dunham, Harford Conn., October 17, 1901, and Dunham to Stone, October 18, 1901; and Letters of Congratulation on His Election as President of the Travelers Insurance Co.; 100th Anniversary; Communications, Record Group 8; Travelers Insurance Co., Hartford, CT.

129. It is not clear whether buyers did receive and act upon such a signal. This account, however, only requires that Conference company managers believed that buyers could and would.

130. C.P. Ellerbe to Geo. F. Seward, Esq., September 22, 1899, Folder 2, Box 4, Seward Papers, New York Historical Society. In March 1899, C.P. Ellerbe had been replaced as company president. “Notes of Insurance Interests,” New York Times, March 9, 1899, 14.

131. “New Book of Liability Rates Issued,” The Standard, May 4, 1901, 435.

132. “Liability Rates,” Monthly Bulletin of the Fidelity and Casualty Company 6 (February 1901): 19.

133. “Liability Conference,” Monthly Bulletin of the Fidelity and Casualty Company 6 (March 1901): 35

134. “Salient Features of Liability Manual,” The Standard, May 11, 1901, 461.

135. Law, Frank E., A Method of Deducing Liability Rates (New York: Spectator Co., 1908)Google Scholar.

136. Who's Who in Insurance: An International Biographical Dictionary and Year Book (New York: Singer Co., 1908): 182Google Scholar.

137. Law, Method, 3 (“In some States not more than three or four of the 950 classifications is written. In all, out of the possible 47,500 classifications that may be written, there is experience on about 3,000.”). On data the Conference collected, see Otis, “The Bureau,” 261.

138. Law, Method, 22–23. To produce this number, Law assumed a base loss-cost of 1 for the country as a whole. For each state, he then multiplied the mean premium rates for the country as a whole by the payrolls for the various risk classifications in each state, as well as for total payroll in the state. This resulted in a “pure premium” income for every risk classification in the state, plus one more for the state as a whole. Law divided this pure premium income into the losses for each risk classification in the state, which produced the “pure” or “normal” loss-ratio for every risk classification in the state, plus another for the state as a whole. Finally, Law divided the normal loss ratio for each state (and for each individual risk classification therein) by the normal loss ratio for the country as a whole. Ibid.

139. Law, Frank E., “Liability Insurance: Premium Rates” in The Business of Insurance: A Text Book and Reference Work Covering All Lines of Insurance, vol. 2, ed. Dunham, Howard P. (New York: Ronald Press Co., 1912), 255Google Scholar.

140. Manual of Liability Insurance Containing the Rules, Instructions, Rates and Classifications adopted by the Conference of Liability Companies and amended to January 1, 1905, 24.

141. Law, Method, 23.

142. See, for example, Massachusetts Insurance Act of 1887, ch. 214, § 31, 1887 Mass. Laws 776, 790.

143. Act of May 19, 1894, § 1, 1894 Ohio Laws 352 (requiring out-of-state liability insurance companies, but not in-state liability insurers, to deposit not less than $50,000 in certain securities with the Ohio superintendent of insurance “for the benefit, security and protection of the policy-holders of the company residing within this state”); Act of Feb. 18, 1897, No. 614, § 8, 1897 Ala. Laws 1377, 1381–82 (state-administered “Liability Reserve” charging liability insurers a minimum of $300 for each pending lawsuit against a company's policyholders “for which it may be liable in the lower court and $700.00 additional when suit is appealed by the defendant to a higher court”); and Act of April 21, 1899, § 3, 1899 Ill. Laws 237, 239 (requiring casualty companies organized under Illinois law to “do business” with a minimum capital stock of $100,000 “fully paid in cash,” with an additional $50,000 for every additional “kind of insurance” it was authorized to sell, but setting the minimum for companies insuring liability for accidental injuries at $200,000).

144. Batterson to Geo. F. Seward, Esq., Prest., June 26, 1894, PL2, p. 457.

145. The Travelers Insurance Co., by J. Batterson, Objections to the Bill (H.B. No. 279), undated, PL2, p. 384–86; Batterson to Geo. F. Seward, Esq., President, dated May 7, 1894, PL2, p. 413; and Batterson to P.W. Ditto, Esq., Neil House, Columbus, Ohio, April 10, 1894, PL2, p. 389.

146. Batterson to Geo. F. Seward, Prest., March 12, 1894, PL2, p. 376.

147. Batterson to Geo. F. Seward, Prest., March 26, 1894, PL2, p. 380.

148. Petition, Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Hahn, Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio, filed March 12, 1895, in Record, Supreme Court of Ohio, Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Hahn.

149. Batterson to Seward, June 19, 1894, PL2, p. 449; Batterson to W.C. Maybury, Esq., Managing Director, etc. [Standard Life & Accident Co.], Detroit, Mich., December 28, 1894, PL2, p. 660.

150. Weekly Underwriter, March 9, 1895, 173; and Weekly Underwriter, May 25, 1895, 377.

151. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2; Paul, 75 U.S. at 178–82.

152. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8; Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648 (1895) (decided January 7, 1895).

153. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Fire Association of Philadelphia v. People of the State of New York, 119 U.S. 110, 119 (1886). This view is “now discarded.” Western & Southern Life Insurance Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 451 U.S. 648, 660 n. 12 (1981) (citations omitted).

154. Brief of Plaintiff in Error in Supreme Court of Ohio, Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Hahn (filed May 2, 1895); Petition, Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Hahn, Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio, filed March 12, 1895, in Record, Supreme Court of Ohio, Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Hahn; Ohio Const. of 1851, art. II, § 16 (“No bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title; and no law shall be revived, or amended, unless the new act contain the entire act revived, or the section or the sections amended; and the section, or sections, so amended, shall be repealed.”).

155. Opinion of Franklin County Circuit Court, March 30, 1895 (dismissing petition), reprinted in Appendix, Brief of Defendant in Error at 28–29; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Hahn, 44 N.E. 1135 (Ohio 1895) (affirming judgment without opinion).

156. Weekly Underwriter, May 25, 1895, 380; and The Standard, August 26, 1899, 197.

157. Act of May 29, 1901, No. 190, § 3, 1901 Mich. Pub. Acts 268, 269–70; Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Convention of Insurance Commissioners of the United States (Springfield: H.W. Rokker Co., 1903), 66, 70. In 1905, the Michigan legislature raised the minimum to fifty percent of premiums received and earned. See Act of May 25, 1905, No. 137, 1905 Mich. Pub. Acts 186, 187.

158. Law, Frank E., A Review of Liability and Workmen's Compensation Loss Reserve Legislation (New York: Fidelity & Casualty Co., 1913), 3Google Scholar. The Michigan insurance commissioner's examination of Travelers had occasioned the exchange in which George Seward had referred to Travelers' President Batterson as a bull in a china shop. See text accompanying nn. 121–123.

159. Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Convention of Insurance Commissioners of the United States (Springfield: H.W. Rokker Co., 1903), 67–68 (quoting Seward letter)Google Scholar.

160. Ibid., 68 (quoting Seward letter).

161. Ibid., 70–72.

162. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Convention of Insurance Commissioners of the United States (Springfield: H.W. Rokker Co., 1905), 70Google Scholar.

163. Act of May 12, 1903, ch. 566, 1903 N.Y. Laws 1241, 1242–43; and Act of June 11, 1903, ch. 168, § 2, 1903 Conn. Pub. Acts 129, 130. New York amended its law in 1904. Act of April 28, 1904, ch. 468, 1904 N.Y. Laws 1173, 1174–75. See Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Convention of Insurance Commissioners of the United States (Springfield: H.W. Rokker Co., 1905), 71Google Scholar.

164. Law, Review, 4.

165. Act of March 20, 1905, § 2, ch. 327, 1905 Calif. Laws 379–382; Act of March 30, 1905, ch. 113, 1905 N.Y. Laws 162; Act of April 13, 1905, ch. 287, 1905 Mass. Acts 206; Act of May 16, 1905, 1905 Ill. Laws 288; and Act of July 19, 1905, ch. 272, 1905 Conn. Pub. Acts 475. Texas enacted a similar law in 1909. Act of March 22, 1909, ch. 108, § 54, 1909 Tex. Gen. Laws 192, 208–210.

166. Letter from Sidney N. Moon to the editor of the Spectator, May 3, 1905, in “Underwriting in Liability Insurance,” The Spectator, May 18, 1905, 257; and “New Liability Bill in New York Legislature,” The Standard, February 4, 1905, 108.

167. “New Liability Bill in New York Legislature,” The Standard, February 4 1905, 108; and “Liability Business—President Seward Advocates Law Regarding Loss Reserves,” Insurance Press, February 1, 1905, 1.

168. Weekly Underwriter, June 3, 1905, 529; see also “Liability Reserves,” Monthly Bulletin of the Fidelity & Casualty Company 10 (May 1905): 68 (“The bill drawn and promoted by this company has become law in California, New York, and Massachusetts. It is likely to become law in Illinois.”).

169. “Decide to Continue the Liability Conference,” The Standard, September 16, 1905, 259; and Weekly Underwriter, September 16, 1905, 188.

170. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Convention, 71–72 (reporting that majority of liability underwriters consulted by the National Convention of Insurance Commissioners' Committee on Reserves Other than Life opposed such discretion).

171. 1905 Conn. Pub. Acts at 476–77, § 3

172. 1905 Mass. Acts 206, § 1.

173. Proceedings of the National Convention of Insurance Commissioners of the United States (Springfield: H.W. Rokker Co., 1908), 140 (minimum reserves not “anywhere near large enough”)Google Scholar; S.H. Wolfe, “Reserve for Unpaid Liability Losses,” Weekly Underwriter, February 15, 1908, 127–28 (similar); “The Future of Liability Insurance,” The Spectator, October 11, 1906, 180 (encourages accident underreporting); and Law, Review, 9–12 (average costs of notices of injury and lawsuits vary considerably by liability insurer).

174. See Act of March 10, 1911, ch. 49, § 95, 1911 Wash. Laws 161, 236; Act of April 20, 1911, ch. 315, 1911 Mass. Acts 268; Act of April 20, 1911, ch. 315, 1911 Minn. Gen. Laws 439, 440–43; Act of April 27, 1911, ch. 44, 1911 Conn. Pub. Acts 1296; Act of May 24, 1911, ch. 183, 1911 N.Y. Laws 285, 287–91; Act of June 1, 1911, 1911 Pa. Laws 604; Act of June 12, 1911, 1911 Ohio Laws 477; Act of Aug. 22, 1911, No. 266, 1911 Ga. Laws 174; Edwin W. DeLeon, “Casualty, Surety, and Miscellaneous Insurance in the United States,” in The Insurance Year Book. 1912–1913 [Life, Casualty and Miscellaneous.] (New York: Spectator Co., 1912), A-88–A-89. For criticism of this method, see Rubinow, I.M., “Liability Loss Reserves,” Proceedings of the Casualty Actuarial and Statistical Society of America 1 (1915): 279–94Google Scholar.

175. Weekly Underwriter, June 4, 1910, 444 (naming committee members).

176. Emmett, William T., “Adequate Reserves Against Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation Risks,” in Proceedings of the National Convention of Insurance Commissioners of the United States (Columbia: R.L. Bryan Co., 1912), 229–30Google Scholar; Benedict D. Flynn, “Statistics and Reserves,” in The Business of Insurance, 323–24; and Proceedings of the National Convention of Insurance Commissioners of the United States, vol. 2 (Helena: State Publishing Co., 1910), 170–72Google Scholar.

177. Fifty-Ninth Annual Report of the Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York: Part V (Albany: J.B. Lyon Co., 1918), 831–82 (report of examination of National Workmen's Compensation Bureau, August 15, 1917)Google Scholar; Report on Workmen's Compensation Insurance of the Commission to Investigate Practices and Rates in Insurance (Boston: Wright & Potter, 1915), 14–22Google Scholar; Fifty-Fifth Annual Report of the Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York: Part V (Albany: J.B. Lyon & Co., 1914), 1142–74 (report on Workmen's Compensation Service, July 30, 1913)Google Scholar; and DeLeon, “Casualty, Surety, and Miscellaneous Insurance in the United States,” A-89, A-92.

178. Act of June 28, 1911, ch. 460, 1911 N.Y. Laws 1062. On the spread of fire insurance regulation after Kansas (1909), see Schneiberg, Marc and Bartley, Tim, “Regulating American Industries: Markets, Politics and the Institutional Determinants of Fire Insurance Regulation,” American Journal of Sociology 107 (2001): 111–15, 138CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

179. Act of April 5, 1912, ch. 175, § 1, 1912 N.Y. Laws 317. State sanction of cooperative rate-setting spread faster for fire insurance. Stoddard, Francis R. Jr., “The State Supervision and Regulation of Insurance Rates,” in Proceedings of the Fifty-Third Annual Session of the National Convention of Insurance Commissioners (Richmond: J. W. Fergusson & Sons, 1922), 112–13 (tally of states permitting rating bureaus for, among other things, fire insurance, workmen's compensation, and liability insurance)Google Scholar.