THE ATFORNEY GENERAL
OFTEXAS
Arnwrm% TEXAS 78711
JOEN Ia. EILL
*TroRNmY O-Ard August 14, 1973
The Honorable Jack K. Williams Opinion No. H- 86
President, Texas A & M
University Re: Entitlement to and
College Station, Texas 77843 maximum State contribution
for insurance coverage.
Dear Mr. Williams:
You have requested our opinion on several questions having to do with
the authorized State contribution to the premiums of group insurance poli-
cies insuring State employees. Articles 3. 50 and 3. 51 of the Texas Insurance
Code authorize group policies of life. and health insurance. As amended by
Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 1002, ch. 437, ‘Article 3. 51 now permits .State agencies and
certain political subdivisions of the State to pay premiums on such policies
“in whole or in part from funds contributed by the employer. I’
Your first question is whether the current rider to the General Approp-
riations Act for 1974-1975 limits the State’s contribution to not in excess
of $12. 50 per month for credit to the premium of each full-time employee.
The rider provides:
‘I.. . The state’s contribution per full-time
individual employee covered by any policy or
policies shall not be greater than Twelve Dollars
and Fifty Cents ($12. 50) per month for each
month of the insurance contract year. The
method used to calculate the total yearly amount
to be paid by agencies covered by this Act shall
be One Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($150) times
the number of employees actually covered under
any policy or policies. . . . ” (Acts 1973, H.B.
139, V-38, $10)
p. 390
The Honorable Jack K. Williams, page 2 (H-86)
The rider contained in the 1971 General Appropriations Act was less
precise in its meaning. It simply read:
‘1. . . Payment by the state from the designated
funds on any policy or policies shall be limited
to Twelve Dollars and Fifty Cents ($12. 50) per
month per full-time employee. ‘I (Acts 1971, 62nd
Leg., 1st. C. S., Art. V., $10, p. V-38)
Attorney General Opinion M-919 (1971) construed the 1971 restriction
to define a monthly aggregate expenditure reached by multiplying $12. 50 times
the number of full-time employees on the departmental payroll. It declared
that neither Articles 3. 50 or 3. 51 of the Insurance Code, or the Appropriation
Bill rider placed a minimum or a maximum on the contribution that a depart-
ment might make to the cost of premiums on an individual employee.
Subsequently, the language of the rider was an-ended to provide:
‘1. . * The maximum payment by the State for any
individual employee on any policy or policies shall
not exceed Twelve Dollars and Fifty Cents ($12. 50)
per month per full-time employee . . . . I’ (Acts
1971, 62nd Leg., 3rd C.S., S.B.1, p.V-37, $10)
Attorney General Opinion M-1229 (1972) ruled that no substantial change in
effect had been made by the changed language and that the conclusions made by
Attorney General Opinion M-919 remained operative.
We need not determine whether those prior opinions were correct. The
new language of the rider in House Bill 139, coupled with the unusually frequent
change in the language of corresponding riders over the years, is evidence that
a different legislative intent now prevails. Under House Bill 139 the aggregate
yearly amount expendable is controlled by the language: “$150 time the number
of employees actually covered by any policy or policies. ” We think the unqual-
ified word “employees” includes part-time employees. We are of the opinion
that the $12. 50 “per full-time employee ” limitation is intended to signify the
maximum permissible monthly contribution toward the cost of the premiums
for any individual full-time employee , or combined part-time equivalents.
p. 391
The Honorable Jack K. Williams, page 3 (H-86)
In our opinion the rider is not in conflict with, nor does it amend, .any
general legislation. It does limit, detail and restrict the use of State funds
appropriated by line-item for insurance purposes and is for that reason
“germane” to the subject of appropriations and not violative of Article 3,
$ 35 of the Constitution. See Attorney General Opinions M-1199 (1972) and
V-1254 (1951).
Concerning insurance programs, the discretion conferred upon agencies
by Article 3. 50 and 3. 51, Insurance Code, is pre-existing statutory author-
ity for the use of State funds for payment of employee insurance premiums
for either (or both) full-time or part-time employees. The funding of such
a program is, as always, subject to there being an appropriation of State
funds by the Legislature. In this instance, the Legislature has ‘authorized
the expenditure of $12. 50 per month per full-time employee covered~by any
policy or policies, whether in full or partial payment ,of premiums. See
Linden v. Finley, 49 S. W. 578 (Tex. 1899), and Conley v; Daughters of the
Republic, 156 S. W. 197 (Tex. 1913).
In our view, “per full-time individual employee” requires a ratio approach
to part-time employees and, at the same time, indicates a limitation upon
payments on behalf of individual employees. The amount of premium paid
for each part-time employee is to be dependent upon the.relationship which
his service bears to that of a full-time employee. However, in no case would
an individual employee, full or part-time, ever be entitled to have more than
$12.50 par month paid toward the cost of group insurance premiums.
Therefore, it is our opinion that House Bill 139, Acts 1973,, V-38, $10
does limit the State’s contribution toward the cost of an individual full-time
employee’s insurance premiums for group insurance authorized by Articles
3. 50 and 3. 51, Texas Insurance Code, to $12. 50 per month.
We have already answered your second question, which is whether a less
than full-time employee should receive a proportionate contribution of State
funds to his monthly premiums of group insurance.
No statute requires agencies to extend insurance programs to their active
employees, full or part-time; or, if a program is extended, to pay any portion
of premium. The agency or university may pay all, none, or any portion of a
p. 392
The Honorable Jack K. Williams, page 4 (H-86)
part-time individual’s premium whether or not it pays premiums for full-time
employees. It must extend eligibility in life insurance programs to all employees,
but it need not pay premiums for all of them. See Art. 3.50, ,Texas Insurance
Code. However, if it does pay premiums for part-time employees, the maxi-
mum amount it may pay is limited by the Appropriation Bill to an amount which
bears to $12. 50 the same ratio that the service of the part-time employee bears
to that of a full-time employee (“per full-time individual employee”). A lesser
contribution is within the agency’s discretion.
Finally, you ask if a regular academic year teacher is eligible for premium
contributions for the summer months the teacher is not teaching and is not
otherwise on the payroll. Our answer is that if the teacher is under a contract
of employment which continues through the summer or under a tenured contract
which continues indefinitely, he should be considered an “employee” of the
university for the summer months and eligible’ for State contribution to his
premiums. If his employment is terminated in May, then he is no longer qual-
ified to receive a contribution from the State toward his insuranc~e premiums;
SUMMARY
The new language restricting the use of funds
appropriated for insurance purposes under House
Bill 139 requires that the State’s contribution to the
premium of any individual full-time employee “shall
not be greater” than $12. 50 per month during any
month of the insurance contract year. A part-time
employee may receive a proportionate contribution
of State funds to his insurance premiums and a
professor, if he remains an employee over the summer
months, is eligible to receive the State’s contribution
for that period.
ry truly yours,
Attorney General of Texas
p. 393
The Honorable Jack K. Williams, page 5 (H-86)
DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman
Opinion Committee
p. 394
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion