O'Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.
Co., 282 U.S. 251 (1931), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state statute limiting the commissions allowable by insurers against loss by fire to local agents will be deemed a valid exercise of the police power in the absence of facts showing it to be unreasonable.O'Gorman and Young, Inc., a domestic corporation licensed as an insurance broker, sued a licensed foreign fire insurance company to recover a balance alleged to be due for services performed as local agent.The trial court ruled in favor of the insurance companies, finding that a law is presumed to be reasonable until a contrary showing is made.The United States Supreme Court affirmed a judgment in favor of the insurance companies in O'Gorman and Young's action to recover payment for services rendered as a local agent.Aside from insurance rates, the case is better known for Brandeis's statement that "[a]s underlying questions of fact may condition the constitutionality of legislation of this character, the presumption of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some factual foundation of record for overthrowing the statute."