AUSTIN 11. TJSXAS 

PRICE DANIEL 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

June 28, 1948 

Hon. Wallace T D Barber opinton NO. v-619 

County Attorney 

Hays Count Jr Re: Authority OP rural 

San Marcos, Texas high school district 

to secure WorkmenQs 

Compensation Insuranoe on workmen 

erecting school bullding * 

Dear Sir: 

We quote from your request for on opinion 8s 

follows: 

“A rural hQh school district in 

Hays County, Texa5, voted and issued sohool 

house building bonds for the construction of 

new buildings and remodeling of existing 

buildings 6 Instead of letting 8 contract 

for this work, the school board has hired 

their own foreman and workmen. The school 

board now proposea to take out UoPkmen~s Compensation and pay for the same from either 

the bond money OP else fpom regular school 

funds ~0 The question fs whether or not it is 

proper for the school board to pay for the 

predurs to be due on the woHcmmDa compO 

from either the bond money or else from reg- 

~18~ s,ehool tinda + ” 

Art. 2922k, V. C. S,, provides: 

“All rural high schools within 8 rural 

high school district herein provided SOP 

ah811 be under the immediate control of the 

t~g;,;f school trustees for such Pural high 

, and such boord,of school trustees 

shall be under the,,@ontrol 8nd SupePvisfon 

of &he county super fotetident and-, eount;l board 

of school,, ,trustees, and ahall be sub 

i 

e(9t ,to 

the:same provisions of law and PestP Btfons 

thrt, common sohool districts are now subject 

to, except where otherwise provided herein.’ 
Hon. Wallace T, Barbm, Pago 2, v-619 

Artio1e 2749, v. c. s., provides th8t the 

tPuatees shall have the 88n8geUUt aad eontPo1 of the 

public schools and publio scheol gr0und6, and Article 

2752, V, C, 50, 8tltkOPfteE thb tPU8tb.5 Of 8 aehool 

dlstrlct to OOtltP8et fop the ePbetfon of the bufldings snd auperfntend the constmmtfon of the e8me0 

art. 2827, V. C, SO, provfdes, In wt, 8s 

foLlows: 

"The public fmo school tiads shall not 

be expended exoept POP thb followfng purposers 

Q 0 0 0 

“2, L0081 school fu~@s ~POIR disfP"iot 

tams, tuition fees of pupils not entitled to 

rrbb tuition am4 other lea81 boulwba may be 

ured rOP the puPpo$MI euumerbted rOP gt8te 8Ud 

county runtlr snd POP pur8hbrfQg rpplfanees 8d 

supplies > la. 0 0 0 0 

We bolfeve y'ou~ queatfon fs aentmllod by 

the reaeoning 8nd oonolusfon Peaeked la Ophioa 810. 

0-1418 of the Attornef Oeaeril of %?exas, approved Bsptember 25,/1939. The question there oonspderod was 

Whether 8 school dimtpiot, whlah is not Ifable for pepSORO1 it~juPJ rPO8 6 #IS&@01 buS 8O&fdOnt, h8e 8UthOPfty 

to expand fts publfe funds Co gur@hDile liabflfty or 

pOPSOn in,jau?y fIWPbt3C0, rOP th@ bQQ&ft Or PI&h 

and third pa??tfee~ That queetfon was eonsidsred f~or 

the St8UdpOfnt of" whothee AHfele 2827, V. 6, S,,abovo 

quoted; provided f?Xp!Pbml 8uthoPftf POP such 8n oxpenditum; l nd, ff not, wh%theP ,ths 8uthoPfty tight be 

implied Boa the exp~eas statutory authorfty to operate 

school buraa, It vat! thepd, hold that sines thope could 

be no lfabflfty on the pmt ofp V&I dfrstPfat OP fts 

agents and employees fn tho porfommee of the govepnmental f'unetfon or opepatfng Q scshool bus, ,sueh expendituPe W8S not authoPfSed by APt. 2827. It W8S held 

that the 18tteP A,Ftfcle authorfeed p8YIm8nt Of p~e8fu~ar 

only r0P tiueh fasuPbnoe 85 pPote&wI the ammt, 

ftre$f, fPa8 ~OUUf8Py lose QP lf8bflfty. It w8s 8180 

held thbt there ex%st& no implfe,af power fn that eonnootfon rfnee themi ~81 no neeersity r02 auah expenditree ao rap am the school listPfat.Wae ~onee~aed, 

The epeatfon of sahoolbufldfngr '%sj a school 
Hon. Wallaoe T. Barber, Page 3, v-619 

district,was held in an oplnlon of the Attorney Cenera1 dated June 8, 1937, Book 376,,psge 733, addressed to ,Covernor James'V. Allred, to be a governmental funutfon and the district could not be subjected to pecuniary loss or llablllty by.reason of 

injuries sustained by persons In connection with 

the erection of such buildings. Therefore, the authority in Article 2827 to pay insurance premiums 

doer not lnulude authority to pay for such lnsuranoe. lo other,authority is found ,for such an expenditure. 

In Opinion No, O-5315 n approved May 22, '.. 

1943, the Attorney General held that then County Commlsaioner8~ Court OS a county did not have poWbP to 

procure workmen's compensation insurance on operators of road maintenance equipment, following the 

rule stated in Texas Jurisprudence, Vol. 45, p- 455, 

Sec. 69, that the Texas Workmen*8 Compensation Law 

"does not apply to atatea, counties or olties in 

their performance of governmental funotions." It 

was there noted that under Article, III, Section 59, 

of the'Tda5 Conatibutlon, the Legislature was empowered to !'provldb workmi!n~~s tiO%pensation lnsuranae ior uu(rh state ~employeea, is ,ln l~t.ts judgment 

is neorssary or required"; but that such benef'lts 

had not been extended to oountles. ,One of the rea* 

sow assigned in that opinion was the laok of express 

statutory authority, equally applioablo to your queation. The Legislature haa not extended such benefits 

to sehool districts. 

There are oadd holding that a clt 

-?d 

, though 

not aubjeOt'to the Workmen18 Compensation 9 =wa 

nevertheless, Insure-its employees against bodily lnWY. See MoCaleb v. Continental Caaaaltg Co.,~l32 

Tex.~65, ,116 S, W, (28) 679:'Crert Amerloan Indemnity 

Co, v. Blakey, 107 3. W. (2d)'1002 (Court of Cfrll 

Appeala, San Antonio) on raotlon~ ior rehearing, p* 1006; 

and, Southern Calrualty Co, v@ Morgan, 299 S;W. 476, 

affirmed, Commission of AppQalr, X? '%, W, (26) 200, 

Aone of these oases deal with the souroe ai' authority 

to the city to make the oxpendlture. They merely eatabllsh two aollateral p~lnclpl8s~ lat, the faut that 

eltles are note fnaluded within the provlrlona of the 

Wor.kaen's Compensation Law will not preclude them from 

entering Into a contract Pnsurlng their employees On 

the samb.brslr aa employees are insured under the 
Ron. Wallace T. Barber, Page 4, v-619 

Workmenls Compensation Lawg and, 2nds having entered 

into such a contract the insurer Is estopped to assert 

the lack of authority on the part of the city to make 

such a contract as a defense to a suit by an employee 

injured thereafter. Th6 question of the authority of 

the cities to effect expenditures for such insurance 

was left open. The authority to expend public funds 

for such Insurance by a olty depends upon the construction and application o? its chapter and the statutes 

applicable thereto, whereas the authority of school 

districts and strictly state agencies to make expendituzres must be found in applicable general statutes 

governing their expenditures. 

We express no opinion a8 to the liability 

of' an lnsuranae company to an employee of any school 

distriot which took but much InsuPanoe, notwithstanding 

its want of authority. This fob t&s Serson,that the 

cases cited say that the insu~mea conponies are eatopped to raise the question of the power to contract. 

McCaleb v. Continental Casualty Co,, supra, 

You are respeotf'ully advised that such expenditure is not, la otm opiaion,, authorired. 

A rural high school district is not 

authorized to expend money in payment of 

premiuma for workmen"a compensation insuranoe payable to its employees fop personal 

injuries received while engaged in the eonstruction of a school building, 

Very truly yours 

A!PTORflSq ffBl$l$ OJ TXM_ 

N&/rt 

APPROVED; 

, 

iames 'Ti !%-yafl 

Assistant