In Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U.S 93, 37 S. Ct. 344, 61 L. Ed. 610 (1917), the defendant was an Arizona company which issued a policy of insurance on a building in Colorado. 243 U.S. at 94. The insurance company had obtained a license to do business in Missouri under a statute which required it to file with the Missouri insurance department a power of attorney consenting that service of process on the insurance "superintendent should be deemed personal service upon the company so long as it should have any liabilities outstanding in the state." Id. Service of process was made upon the defendant by service on the superintendent. Id. Both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court held that personal jurisdiction did not violate the defendant's due process rights. Id. at 95-97. The Supreme Court has made absolutely clear that appointment of an agent for service of process pursuant to permission to do business in a state by itself confers jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant without offending due process: The construction of the Missouri statute thus adopted hardly leaves a constitutional question open. The defendant had executed a power of attorney that made service on the superintendent of insurance the equivalent of personal service. If by a corporate vote it had accepted service in this specific case, there would be no doubt of the jurisdiction of the state court over a transitory action of contract. If it had appointed an agent authorized in terms to receive service in such cases, there would be equally little doubt. It did appoint an agent in language that rationally might be held to go to that length. The language has been held to go that length, and the construction did not deprive the defendant of due process of law even if it took the defendant by surprise, which we have no warrant to assert. Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co., 243 U.S. at 94.