Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1976 )


Menu:
  • The Honorable Joe Christie         Opinion No. H-848
    Chairman
    State Board of Insurance           Re: Whether persons who
    1110 San Jacinto Blvd.             were not subject to a
    Austin, Texas 78786                disciplinary order of the
    Commissioner of Insurance
    may appeal that order to
    the State Board of Insur-
    ance.
    Dear Chairman Christie:
    You have requested our opinion regarding whether persons
    not subject to a disciplinary order of the Commissioner of
    Insurance may appeal from an order to the State Board of
    Insurance.
    On October 16, 1975, the Commissioner of Insurance
    issued a consent order by which two business entities agreed
    to
    take such actions as may be necessary . . .
    to make it clear that [corporation] is not
    engaged as an agent in the insurance bus-
    iness, that [companyj is an agent engaged
    in the insurance business, and to delineate
    the role or functions of each entity in any
    integrated or joint program of insurance and
    securities solicitations and sales! so as to
    avoid the possibility of [corporation] doing
    business as an insurance agent or the public
    believing that [corporation], rather than
    tcompanyl, is engaged in such insurance
    business.
    p. 3577
    The Honorable Joe Christie - page 2 (H-848)
    Apparently, the Commissioner's order grew out of charges of
    "unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts
    or practices in the business of insurance," as defined in
    and prohibited by article 21.21 of the Texas Insurance Code.
    Sections 3 & 4. Likewise, the Commissioner's consent order
    was issued under the authority of section 22 of article
    21.21, which permits the Board
    [iln the administration of this Article
    . . . [to] accept assurance of voluntary
    compliance with respect to any act or prac-
    tice which violates this Article . . . .
    Article 1.04(d) of the Insurance Code provides, in
    pertinent part:
    Any person or organization, private or
    public, which is affected by any ruling
    or action of the Commissioner of Insur-
    ance shall have the right to have such a
    ruling or action reviewed by the State
    Board of Insurance by making an application
    to the Board.
    Other portions of the Insurance Code provide for appeal in
    specific instances, such as section 13 of article 21.07-1,
    which authorizes an "applicant or accused" to appeal the
    suspension, revocation, or denial of a license. Although
    it is arguable that some of these special appeal provisions
    were repealed by the enactment of article 1.04(d), the court
    in State Board of Insurance v. Adams, 316 S.W.Zd 773 (Tex.
    Civ. App. -- Houston 1958, nrwm       held that they were
    repealed only to the extent they are "repugnant to or incon-
    sistent with the terms of the later statute."   
    Id. at 776,
    779.  In any  event, article 21.21 contains no special appeal
    section except for the inclusion by reference in section 13
    of article 21.44 with respect to cease and desist orders.
    AS to orders acknowledging voluntary compliance under section
    22 of article 21.21, we believe that the general appeal statute,
    article 1.04(d), is clearly applicable.
    p. 3578
    The Honorable Joe Christie - page 3 (H-848)
    Article 1.04(d) permits "any person or organization" to
    appeal to the State Board of Insurance "any ruling or action
    of the Commissioner," provided the appellant is "affected"
    by such ruling or action. Whether an appellant is a person
    "affected" requires a factual determination which is properly
    within the discretionary authority of the Board. In Empire
    Gas
    mm- h Fuel Co. v. Railroad Commission of Texas, 94 S.W.Zd
    1240 (Tex. G.?ipp.   -- Austin 1936, wzt ref'd), the court
    found it impracticable for the Legislature to define precisely
    who were "interested parties affected" and held that whether a
    party was "affected" was
    generally a fact question dependent upon
    the facts and circumstances of the partic-
    ular case . . . . -Id, at 1244.
    Thus, it is our opinion that any person "affected" by the
    order of the Commissioner may appeal that decision to the
    State Board of Insurance pursuant to article 1.04(d) of the
    Insurance Code. It is for the Board reasonably to determine
    whether an appellant is "affected" by the Commissioner's
    order.
    SUMMARY
    Any person "affected" by an order of the
    Commissioner of Insurance pursuant to
    article 21.21, Texas Insurance Code, may
    appeal that decision to the State Board
    of Insurance under article 1.04(d).
    Whether the appellant is a person "affected"
    is a question of fact to be determined by
    the Board.
    p. 3579
    The Honorable Joe Christie - page 4 (H-848)
    APPROVED:
    Opinion Committee
    jwb
    p. 3580
    

Document Info

Docket Number: H-848

Judges: John Hill

Filed Date: 7/2/1976

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017