n
The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX September 18, 1986
Attorney General
Supreme Court Building Mr. Vernon M. Arrell Opinion No. m-547
P. 0. BOX 12548
A,,-‘i^ V. 78711. 2548
C0IllUlissi0ner
_ ._, _ -501 Texas Rehsbilitaticn Commission Re: Whether a state agency
Telex 9101874.1367 118 East Riverside Drive may insure mail or freight in
Telecopier 512/475-0266 Austin, Texas 787C4 transit
714 Jackson, Suite 700
Dear Mr. Arrell:
Dallas, TX. 752024506
2141742-8944 You ask whethe.c the Texas Rehabilitation Commission may insure
freight or mail in transit. You explain that the commission has not
done so in the past because of a number of attorney general opinions
4624 Alberta Ave., Suite 160
El Paso, TX. 79905.2793
that have said tI.at state agencies must have specific statutory
9151533.3464 authority to purchase insurance.
This office has: issued opinions stating that state agencies may
+X81 Texas, Suite 700 not purchase propel'tyinsurance without specific authority. An early
ato”, TX. 77002-3111
opinion supported that holding on the basis that premiums on insurance
I I 312235686
policies could not be paid out of an appropriation for "contingent
expenses" because such expenses were "fixed and expected" expenses
806 Broadway. Suite 312 that had to be speciEically provided for by the legislature. Attorney
Lubbock. TX, 794013479 General Opinion O-201 (1939); see also Attorney General Opinion O-184
8081747-5238
(1939). The opini'on also cited a Senate Concurrent Resolution
expressing legislative intent that no insurance be taken out on public
4309 N. Tenth, Suite 6 buildings or theiT, contents. A number of ouinions have followed
McAllen, TX. 78501-1685 opinion-0-201. Sel!,e.g., Attorney General Opinions M-1257 (1972);
512/682-4547 M-753 (1970); O-8=-(1939).
2M) Main Plaza, Suite 400 This office has also issued opinions stating that state agencies
San Antonio, TX. 78205.2797 may not purchase liability insurance without specific statutory
5121225-4191 authority. See, e.g:, Attorney General Opinions H-1318 (1978); H-742
(1975); M-1257 (1972). The reasoning underlying those opinions is
An Equal Opportunity/
that, because the legislature has specifically authorized various
state agencies t:0 purchase liability insurance in certain
Affirmative Action Employer
circumstances, the legislature has indicated that state agencies may
not purchase liabiltty insurance without such specific authorization.
We do not think that it follows from these opinions that a state
agency may not inswe mail or freight in transit. Agency heads are
responsible for the care and safekeeping of state property possessed
by their agencies. V.T.C.S. art. 610b, 88.03(a). Purchasing postal
insurance or freigh.:insurance from the carrier to cover such property
p. 2424
Mr. Vernon M. Arrell - Page 2: (JM-547)
.
when it is in transit may be a reasonable means of caring for state
property. In such circumstmces, insurance purchased to cover mail or
freight in transit is, in effect, an additional cost of postage or
transportation. Also, like postal expenses generally, expenditures
for insuring mail and freiE,htare not "fixed and expected" expenses.
See Attorney General 0pin:ton V-1423 (1952) ("contingent expenses"
include postage). Therefwe, a state agency may spend money
appropriated for contingent 'expensesor operating expenses for postal
or freight insurance.
SUMMARY
A state agency C.oesnot need specific authoriza-
tion to insure ma:.1or freight in transit.
JdJkbt
Very truly yours
.
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General
MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Sarah Woelk
Assistant Attorney General
p. 2425