August 6, 1952
Honk Homer Garrison, Jr., Director
,Texas Department of Public Safety
Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-1490
Re: Acceptability of automobile
liability insurance policies
issued by Mexican insurance
companies under the Texas
Motor Vehicle Safety-
Dea,r Sir: Re.sponsibiIity Act.
Your request for an opinion in connection with the above-
captioned matter states :
‘Reference is made to the Texas Motor Vehicle
Safety-Responsibility Act, H. B. 219, 52nd Texas Leg-
islature, R.S. 1951, ch. 498, p. 1210 [Article 6701h,
V.C.S.].
“Sec. 1, 13, of the Act reads:
my’restate * -- Any state, territory, or possession
of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any
province of the Dominion of Canada.’
~%ec. 20 of the Act provides:
u ‘CERTIFICATE FURNISHED BY NON-RESIDENT
AS PROOF.
* &(a) The non-resident owner of a motor vehicle
not registered in this State may give proof of financial
resp.onsib.ility by filing with the Department a written
certificate or certificates of an insurance company
authorised to transact business in the state in which
the motor vehicle or motor vehicles describe,d in such
certificate are registered, or if such non-resident
. .
Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 2 (V-1490)
does not own a motor vehicle, thenin the state in
which the insured resides, provided such certificate
otherwise conforms to the provisions of this Act, and
the Department shall accept the same upon condition
that said insurance company complies with the follow-
ing provisions with respect to the policies so certified:
’ ‘1. said insurance company shall execute a
power of attorney authorizing the Department to ac-
cept sexvice on its behalf of notice or process in any
action arising out of a motor vehicle accident in this
state;
@ ‘2. said insurance company shall agree in writ-
ing that such policies shall be deemed to conform with
the laws of this State relating to the terms of motor
vehicle liability policies issued herein.
-‘(b) If any insurance company not authorized to
transact business in this State, which has qualified to
furnish proof of financial resp~ons.ibility. defaults in
any said undertakings or agreements, the Department
shall not thereafter accept as proof any certific,ate of
said company whether theretofore filed or thereafter
tendered as proof, so long as such default continues.’
“In view of the definition of ‘State’ and the provisions
of the cited Section 20, should the written certificate of an
insurance company domiciled in Mexico that has met the
requirements of Se,ctton 20 (a) 1 and 2 be accepted as
pr~oof of financial responsibility by this department if the
motor vehicle described in such certificate is registered
in a state or district of the Republic of Mexico or if a non-
resident does not own a motor vehicle but is a resident of
Mexico ? *
Article 6701h, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, the “Texas Motor
Vehicle Safety-Responsibility Act” (H.B. 219, Acts 52nd Leg., R.S.
1951, ch. 498, p. 1210), seeks to accomplish the dual purpose of
requiring security after an accident for damages from the acci-
dent, and of requiring proof of financial responsibility for the future
upon non-satisfaction of judgments or convictions for violation of
motor vehicle laws. Wilson, The Texas Safety Responsibility Act, .
4 Baylor Law R,eview 1 (1951).
-.
Hon. Homer Garrison,~ Jr., page 3 (V-1490)
The Texas Legislature prescribed the, methods for show-
ing proof of financial responsibility for the futurei These are enum-
erated .in.Sectton 18,ofthe act as .fofLows:
!‘Proof of financial~ responsibility when required :under
thts act with respect to atmotor vehicle or with respect
to a person who is not the owner of a motor vehicle may
be given by filing:
,*l. A certificate of insurance as provided in Sec-
tion 19 or 2,O; or
“2. A bond as provided, in Section 24; or
“3. A certificate of deposit of money or securities
as provided in Section 25; or
‘4. A certificate of -self-insurance as provided in
Section 34, supplemented by an agreement by the self-
insurer that, with respect to accide,nts ~occurring while
the certificate is in force, he will pay the same judgments
and in the same amounts that, an insurer would have been
obligated to pay under an owner’s motor vehicle liability
policy if it had issued such a policy to said self-insurer.
“No motor vehicle shall be or continue to be regis-
tered in the name .of any’person required to file proof
of financial responsibility unless such proof shall be
furnished for such motor vehicle.”
Thus, the intent of the Legislature was not merely to re-
quire financial responsibility for the future but mprescribe ac-
ceptable methods for meeting this requzrement.
Section 20, toward which your inquiry is directed, pre-
scribes the means by which a nonresident of Texas may show proof
of financial responsibility under the act. It is an elaboration of the
method for pr,oving financial responsibility as prescribed in Section
18. whereby proof is made possible by the filing of a certificate of
insurance.
:The types of insurance c’ertificates acceptable from non-
residents are carefullylimited in Section 20 by the proviso that the
Hon. Homer Garrison. Jr., page 4 (v-1490)
certificate must be from *an insurance c~ompany authorized to
transact business in the state in which the motor vehicle or
motor vehicles des.cribedxuch certificates are registered,
or if such non-re~sident does not own a motor vehicle, then in
then state in which the insured reside% provided such certificate
othese conforms to the provisions of the Act, . . .s [Em-
phasis added.]
It will be noted that the word “state” is used twice in the
above-quoted provision. The act defines “state” as *any state,
territory or possession of the United States, the District of Co-
lumbia, or any province of the Dominion of Canada.” In view of
the fact that the Legislature has expressly defined the word ~“state:
this definition is binding throughout the statute unless the defini-
tion is ambiguous. This rule of construction is found in 39 Tex.
Jur. 200, Statutes, Sec. 107:
*
. . . when the Legislature defines a ward or group
of words which it has power to do and frequently does,
the definition, being clear and unambiguous, is binding
upon the Courts as an expression of the legislative in-
tent, regardless of the meaning of the word in common
parlance, or in other connectt~ons. . . .*
In defining “state.” the Legislature went further than the
boundaries and posse,ssions of the United State.s, although these were
included. The definition ~included a foreign nation, the Dominion of
Canada, which, like Mexico, is adjacent to the territorial boundaries
of the United States.
The rule of construction which is applicable here is stated
in State v. Mauritz-WelIs Co.. 141 Tex. 634, 175 S.W.2d 238 (1943),
as follows:
* . . . It is a settled rule that the express mention
or enumeration of one person. thing, consequence, or
class is equivalent to an express exclusion of all others.
1)
. . w
Under this rule the inclusion of one foreign nation in the
definition and the failure to mention others is tantamount to the
exclusion of alI others. The Republic of Mexico was not included,
and it is evid,ent that the Legislature intended to exclude it and all
. -
Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 5 (V-1490)
other areas except the states, territories and possessions of the
United States, the District of Columbia, or any province of the
Dominion of Canad,a.
There being no ambiguity in this definition, it is bind-
ing as an expression of legislative intent.
Your question does not concern the constitutionality of
the sections of Article 6701h, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, under
consideration and consequently this opinion does not pass upon
that point.
SUMMARY
A written certificate of an insurance company domi-
ciled in Mexico may not be accepted by the Department
of Public Safety as proof of financial responsibility as
provided for in Section 20 of Article 6701h, V.C.S., the
Texas Motor Vehicle Safety-Responsibility Act, as the
Republic of Mexico is not included within the definition
of “state” as contained in the act. The Department is
permitted to accept certificates of insurance only from
companies authorized to do business in a “state” as de-
fined.
APPROVED : Yours very truly,
William S. Lott PRICE DANIEL
State Affairs Division Attorney General
E. Jacobson
Reviewing Assistant
BY
Charles D. Mathews Edward Reichelt
First Assistant Assistant
ER :mf
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion