TISEATTORNEUGENERAL
OFTEXAS
AUSTIN m.TwAs
PRICE DANIEL
ATTORNEYGl?NERAL
January 28, 1948
Hon. E. G. Garveg Opinion No. V-487
County Auditor
Bexar County Re: Authorltg~ of the Commlssioner's
San Antonio, Texas Court to allow the formation
of a group life insurance plan
for county employees and to
authorize the county auditor
to make salary deductions land
act as trustee of the preml-
urns for such a group plan.
Dear Sir:
We refer to your recent letter to this Department in
which you ask the following questions:
?Jnder the provisions of House Bill
No. 420, may, I, as County AudLtor, col-
lect and pay premiums on a group insurance
plan organized under the provisions there-
of by county employees by deducting the
premiums therefor from the various county
pay-rolls?"
Section 1 of H. B. 420, Acts of the 50th Leg., R. S.,
1947, is in part as follows:
"'Section 1. No policy of group life
Insurance shall be delivered in this State
unless it conforms to one of the following
descrlptlons:. . . .
"'(3) A policy issued to an indepen-
dent school aistrlct, incor+porated city,
town or village which has assumed control
of the public school system within such
municipality, State colleges or universi-
ties, any association of State employees,
any association of State and Counts em-
ployees; any~department of the State Gov-
ernment, which employer or association
shall be deemed the pollcyholder, to in-
sure the employees of any such independent
school district and of the public school
Hon. E. G. Garvey, page 2 (V-487)
system of any such municipality, of any
such State colleges and universities, of
any such department of the State Govern-
ment, members of any association of State
employees, and members~of an? association
of State and County emulosees for the bene-
fit of persons other than the policyholder
subject to the following requirements: . .I’
(Emphasis added)
We are of the opinion that H. B. 420, supra, does not
apply to an association solely of county employees, since there
Is nothing In the context to Fndlcate such an intent on the
part of the Legislature. To give this effect to the bill we
would either have to strike out the words “State Andy” orcbn-
strue the word “and” to mean “or”. As to the first alterna-
tive, we see no reason therefor, nor do we believe the courts
would delete those words from the bill in order to bring coun-
ty employees within Its provisions, considering the context
of the entire Act. With reference to the second alternative,
we realize that the courts have sometimes said that the
words “and” and “or” are interchangeable and that one may be
substituted for the otherif to do so is consistent with leg-
lslative intent. However, we find nothing in the context of
the bill which evidences such legislative intent.
Since the Act does not provide for the formation of
an association of county employees solely, and since it does
not contain any provision authorizing the county auditor to
cbllect and pay premiums therefor from the county employees”
salaries , you are respectfully advised that in the absence’ of
such authority it is the opinion of this Department that the
county auditor cannot collect and pay premiums on such a group
insurance plan under the provisions of said Act.
However, such county employees as may be members of ab
association of State and County employees may be insured under
the provisions of this Act. Nevertheless, there are no provl-
slons In the Act whereby the county may pay any part of the
premiums of the group policy.
Further, county employees may voluntarily band together
as Individuals under ttieir inherent rights and secure bene-
fits under the group plan, just the same as if they were ln-
eluded in the bill, except there Is no provision for the
county to obtain this for them, nor has the county any right
to withhold. any part of the employees’ wages, even with their
consent.
We call your attention to H. B. 665, Acts of the 50th
;’ -
Hon. E. G. Garvey, page 3 (‘J-W’)
Leg., R.S., which empowers county employees to combine for the
purpose of buying policies of group health, accident, and ac-
cidental death insurance. We are enclosing a copy of our
Opinion No. v-488, which construes the provisions of said Act,
SUMMARY
The county auditor cannot collect and
pay~premiums for a group consisting solely
of county employees on a group insurance
plan under the provisions of H. B. 420, Acts
of the 50th Leg., R. S., 1947.
Yours very truly
ATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS
By s/Bruce Allen
Bruce Allen
Assistant
BA:djm:mw:wc
APPROVED:
s/Price Daniel
ATTORNEYGENERAL