Opinion
No. 37065
Decided December 27, 1961.
Workmen's compensation — Premium rates — General rating rules of Industrial Commission — Mandamus denied to require rescission of rule — Parties relator.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
This action in mandamus originated in the Court of Appeals. The relators, partners doing business as Moskowitz Bros., question the validity of the Industrial Commission's General Rating Rule VII relative to the computation of workmen's compensation premiums. They contend that the rule is violative of the Constitution and of Sections 4123.29 and 4123.31, Revised Code, relative to rates of premiums.
The prayer of the petition is for a writ ordering the commission to refund to relators a specified sum as premiums illegally collected by the application of rule VII, and further for a writ ordering the commission to cancel and rescind rule VII so far as it violates Sections 4123.29 and 4123.31, Revised Code, and to adopt a rule which either directs the collection of a premium based on total payroll of all state risks in conformity with the statutory provisions, or that the premium be based on insurance principles.
The Court of Appeals found that the assessments were not illegal, and that relators are not entitled to refunds of premiums paid, but that rule VII is unreasonable so far as it applies a different test for the payment of premiums by corporations from the test used in determining the payment of premiums by partnerships and single proprietorships. The court ordered that a writ issue requiring the commission to revise rule VII so that it will provide for collection of premiums consistent with insurance principles as required by Section 4123.29, Revised Code.
An appeal as of right brings the cause to this court for review.
Mr. Howard Gould and Mr. David Reichert, for appellees.
Mr. Mark McElroy, attorney general, Mr. Alvin C. Vinopal and Mrs. Mary Spivey Durham, for appellants.
It appears from the record that the degree of hazard of the occupation and the risks of the different classes were used in fixing the rates of premiums assessed against the relators, that it was done in accordance with the provisions of Sections 4123.29 and 4123.31, Revised Code, and that the assessments against relator are not illegal and the Court of Appeals so found. Therefore, the relators, not having suffered any loss from the application of rule VII, have no interest as to the validity of rule VII.
Where a relator has no beneficial interest in the allowance of a writ, the writ should be denied. 35 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 417, Section 135; State, ex rel. Keppler, v. Houston, Judge, 172 Ohio St. 485.
Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeals ordering a writ to issue requiring the Industrial Commission to revise rule VII is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
ZIMMERMAN, TAFT, MATTHIAS, BELL, HERBERT and O'NEILL, JJ., concur.