. . 

April 7, 1971 

Hon. James L. Slider, Chairman 

State Affairs Committee 

House of Representatives 

State Capitol 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Dear Mr. Slider: 

Opinion No. M- 831 

Re: Validity of House Bill 

442 of the 62nd Legislature, R.S. 1971, prohibiting 

members, employees and 

agents of the State Board 

of Insurance from receiving 

any compensation from an 

insurer doing business in 

Texas within six years 

after leaving his position 

with the State. 

Your request for an opinion asks whether the provisions 

of House Bill 442 of the 62nd Legislature, Regular Session, 1971, 

are valid, The Bill amends Article 1.09-3 of the Texas Insurance 

Code to read as follows: 

"Article 1.09-3. 

"(a) All members of the State Board of Insurance, Commissioner of Insurance, and all employees and agents of the State Board of Insurance 

shall be subject to the code of ethics and the 

standard of conduct imposed by Chapter 100, Acts 

of the Fifty-fifth Legislature, Regular Session, 

1957. 

"(b) I n addition to the code of ethics and 

standard of conduct imposed by Subsection (a) of 

this Article, no person subject to Subsection (a) 

may receive, within six years after leaving his 

position or job with the Board, compensat;on from 

any insurer doing business in this state. 

Section 19 of Article I of the Constitution of Texas 

reads: 

"Sec. lg. No citizen of this State shall be 

deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or 

immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except 

-4025- 
Hon. James L. Slider, page 2 (M-831) 

by the due course of the law of the land .‘I 

The liberty of contract which includes the ccrrespcndir,: 

right to accept a contract proposed, is a constitut~ionai right 

protected by the orcvisions of Section lo of Article 1 of the 

Constitution of Texas, above quoted. In St. Louis Southwestern 

RY. co. v. Griffin, 1.06 Tex. 477, 171 S.W. 703 (lgiq the Supreme 

Court stated: 

“The citizen has the liberty of contract as 

a natural right which is beyond the power of the 

government to take from him . . (at p. 704). 

We are aware that the freedom of contract may’be limited 

where there are visible reasons of public policy for the limitation 

and the right to contract while protected by Section 19 of Article 

I is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable regulation 

in the interest of public welfare. International Brotherhood v. 

Huval, 140 Tex. 21, 166 S.W .2d 10’1 (ir?rimri,i?ge v. Home Life & 

A-c. Ins. Co., 246 S.W.2d 666 (Tex.Civ.App. 1931, no writ!- 

- 

It is therefore our opinion that the prohibitions contained 

in this Bill are violative of an individual’s constitutional right 

of contract which is protected by Section 19 of Article I: of the 

Constitution of Texas. 

You are accordingly advised that the provisicns -f 

House Bill 442 of the 62nd Legislature, Regular Session, lr71, 

are unconstitutional, being in viclation of Section 19 zi’ Artile 

i of the Constitution of Texas, 

SUMMARY 

--~- 

House Biil, 442 of the 62nd Legislature, R .S. 

1971 I wherein it would prohibit all members, agents 

and employees of the State Board of Insurance from 

receiving compensation from any insurer witnir six 

years after terminating their official positio- cw:th 

the State violates Section 19 of Article I of the 

Constitution of Texas. 

Very truly yours, 

CRAWFORD C. MARTIN 

Attorney General of Texas 

First Assistant 

-4026- 
Hon. James L. Slider, page 3 (M-831) 

Prepared by John Reeves 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman 

Jay Floyd 

James Quick 

Wardlow Lane 

Ivan Williams 

MEADE F. GRIFFIN 

Staff Legal Assistant 

ALFRED WALKER 

Executive Assistant 

-4027-