NO. 07-07 -005 7-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A SEPTEM BER30, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ PR OPER TY CA SU ALTYIN SU RE RS ASS OC IATION OF AMERICA, AMERICAN INSURANCE ASS OCIAT ION, AN D NATION AL AS SOC IATION OF M UTU AL IN SU RAN C E C OM PA N IE S, A PP EL LA N TS

v. TEXAS D EPAR TMEN T OF IN SU RA NC E AN D GR EG ABBO TT, ATTORN EY GEN ERAL O F TEXAS, APPEL LEES

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 12 6 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF T RAVI S CO UNT Y; TH NO. GN403 012 ; HON. MARGARET COOPER, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CA MP BELL and H AN CO CK and PIR TLE, J J. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON App ellant s Prope rty

Casualty Insurers Associat ion of Am erica, Am erican In suran ce Associa tion, and Nationa l Association of Mutual In suran ce Com pan ies (the Asso ciation s) br ing thi s a ppeal from t he j udg ment of the tr ial co urt det er mini ng thatcert ain i nformati on g athered and maint ain ed by the Tex as Dep artment of I nsurance is not c onfidenti al underAr ti cl e 21. 49- 2U w as rep eal ed ef fecti v e Sept ember

1, 2005. See Actof June 2, 1 2003, 78 Leg. , R.S. , ch. 2 06, § 3.01 , s ec. 15, 2003 Tex . G en. L aw s 9 07, 9 20, repealed

th b y A c to f M a y

2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , 7 9 L e g . , R
. S
. , c h
. 7 2 8 , § 1 1
. 0 2 0 , 2 0 0 5 T e x . G e n . L a w s 2188, th 2 2 1 6
. The cur re nt v ersi on appe ars i n § 5 59.001 of the In surance Cod e butdoes not inc lud e the prov is ion s o f sect ion 15 at i ss ue here. See Tex . I ns. C ode An n. § 559.001 et seq. ( Ver non 200 7) . The for mer v ersi on appl ies here. 2 the Insurance Co de and thus w as subj ectto dis cl osure under the Publ icInfor mati on Ac t. W e affi r m. Procedu ra l and F act ual Bac kg ro und In 20 03, the Le gisl atu re am end ed th e forme r Insuran ce Code byadd ing article 1 21.49- 2U, w hic h address es the u se of credi t i nformati on or repor ts b y in surers for under w ri ti ng or

rati ng of personal in su ra nce cov erag e. The ar ti cl e i ncl uded a prov is ion directing the T exas Departm entof I nsura nce (T DI) to subm it a report to the Le gisl atu re regarding the use o f

credit informa tion b y

insurers in Te x as. T hatprovi s io n , codif ied in former Ins ur ance Cod e as ar

ti cl e 21. 49- 2U § 15, prov ide d, i n rele v ant p art: (b ) The r epor

t req uired unde r thi s s ect ion musti ncl ude: (1) a summ arystate me nt regarding th e use of credit informa tion, credit re por ts, and credi t sc or es by

i nsurers, pr esent ed i n a mann er thatprotec ts the iden tity of

indiv idua l insurers and co nsum ers; (2) a description of

insurer practices a nd th e ef fect of dif feren t credit mo dels, p resen ted in a ma nne r tha t prote cts the iden tity of individual insurers and c onsumers[. ] To pr epare the repor

t, TDI sentl etters req uest ing data from s ome i nsurers. TDI l ater re cei v e d a r e q u e s t u n d e r t h e P u b l i c I n fo r ma t i o n A c t ( P I A ) , a s k i n g fo r c o p i e s of it s cor re spond ence to t he i nsurers reg ardin g the re por t. TDI resi ste d the req uest , t aki ng theIn its w ritten com me nts to the At to rn e y G e n e ra l, TDI de scribed th e lette rs’ 2 attac hments , s tati ng : “ The atta chment s li st the data ele ments that TDI is req uest ing from each insurer. Th e list v aries f rom insu rer to in surer beca use the e lem ent s liste d on each attac hment ar e spec ific to each ind iv idu al ins ur er . As suc h, re lea se of th e at tachments w oul d di sc los e the i denti ty of the i nsurer

bec ause t h e i d e n ti ty

ca n be deter mined by re ferr ing to the rate fil ing manual s, w hic h are publ ici nformati on.” 3 posi ti on th at rele ase of the c or re spond ence w oul d c onfli ct w it h the req uirement of § 1 5( b) that th e i d e n t i t y o f i n d i v i d u a l i n s u r e rs b e p ro t e c t e d
. Th u s , TD I r e a s o n e d , t h e i d e n t i t i e s of the insurers w as informa tion “con f id e n t ia l b y law ,” ex cept ed f rom d isclosure un der § 552.101 of the P IA. Tex . G ov ’tC ode A n n. § 552.101 ( Ver non 200 4)
. It w it hhel d the cor re spond ence and, in acc ordance w it h the PIA, req uest ed a deci si on from t he At tor ney General. Tex . G ov ’tC ode An n. § 552.301 ( Ver non 200 7)
. In i ts w ri tten comments to the Atto rn ey Gene ra l, TDI ex pla ine d that § 15( b) re q uires it s re por t must protec t the i denti ty of the indiv idua l insurers and b ecau se ea ch of its letters w as add ressed to a specif ic insurer, the l etters and re lat ed at tac hments , al so tai lored to eac h i nsurer , w oul d di sc los e the i denti ty of the i nsurers i n v iol ati on of the sta tute. Thus , TD I cont ended, to protec t t he i denti ty of the 2 insurers, th e lette rs sho uld be release d only i n reda cted form a nd th e att achm ent s shou ld b e wit h h e ld in t h e ir

e n t ir e t y. T he At torne y

Gene ral rule d tha t the w ithhe ld informa tion was subject to release under the PIA becau se “a rt ic le 21.49- 2U of t he Ins urance Cod e spec ific all y address es the confide nti ali ty

of ins ur ers’ i denti ti es found in the c re ditsc or ing repor t i tself , a n d notthe iden tities foun d in any informa tion relat ed to the credit scori ng repo rt.” See Tex . At ty ’s Gen. OR 2004- 7453. On re cei v ing the Atto rn ey General’ s ru li ng , t he As soc iat ion s, on beha lf of the ir mem ber insure rs, filed suit against T DI and the At torne y Gene ral unde r the Uniform4

Dec larator

y Ju dg ments Act and the PIA, chal len g ing the r uli ng and seek ing a de cl arati on as to t he proper

i nter pr etati on of the Ins urance Cod e prov is ion
. The Ass oci ati ons and t he defendants each f il ed moti ons for s ummary j udg ment. The Ass oci ati ons arg ued t he p o sit ion TDI had tak en befor e the Att or ney Gene ra l, co ntendi ng TDI’ s c or re spond ence to t he i nsurers s houl d be cons ide re d c onfidenti al by law bec ause of § 15( b) , and co ntended the Atto rn ey Gene ra l w as w ro ng t o f in d t he protec ti on to the insurer’s iden tities un d e r § 15 (b) w as limited to the report itself . Th e Atto rney General’s cont enti ons mir ro re d hi s o pen records ru li ng . The tr ial co urt ent er ed a final j udgment that spl itthe baby
. It hel d the “ names and address es of the ins ur ers that appear on the let ters and attachment s, in cl udi ng names of em ployees of

insurers, acron y ms of

insurer nam es an d na me -ident if y ing i nsure r slog ans” a re m a de c onfidenti al by § 15 and therefore ex cept ed from d is cl osure by PIA § 55 2.101. It found the remai nder

of the infor mati on, “c onsi sti ng of letters f ro m the Tex as Dep artment of Insurance, w it h att achment s, (w it h names and address es re dact ed) ” not e x cept ed from dis cl osure. The tr ial co urt al so conc lud ed th at t he As soc iat ion s w er e notenti tl ed to reli ef under the Uni form D ecl ar ator y Ju d gm ents Ac t. Onl y the Ass oci ati ons filed a no ti ce of app eal. Ana ly sis Pub lic Inform ation Act The per ti nent prov is ion of t he PIA, encompas sed in § 552.101 of th e Gov er nment Cod e, ex cept s from di sclo su re “ infor mati on c onsi dered to be c onfidenti al by l aw , ei ther5

cons ti tuti onal , s tatut or

y , or by j udi ci al deci si on.” The P IA i s t o be l ibe ra ll y co nst ru ed i n fav or of g ran t ing requests for informa tion. Tex. Gov’ t Code Ann. § 552 .00 1(b) (Vernon 200 4). Ex cept ion s t o the PIA

are nar ro w ly

co nst ru ed. T

h o m a s v . C or nyn, 71 S.W .3d 4 73, 4 81 (Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2002, no p et.) ; Ar lin g ton Indep. Sch. D is t. v . Tex as Atto rn ey Gen ., 37 S.W .3d 1 52, 1 57 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2001, no p et.)
. In i ts ru li ng to TDI, the Atto rn ey Gene ra l opi ned on w hether the di sclos ur e of the infor mati on w it hhel d by TDI w as req uired under the PIA. T he opi nio n focus ed on w hether the i nformati on w as cons ide re d “ confide nti al by law ” as setforth i n § 5 52.101. There i s n o dis pute that the d ocument s in q uest ion fall w it hin the PIA’ s d efini ti on of “ publ ici nformati on” and are subj ectto dis cl osure unles s an ex cept ion appli es. The Atto rn ey General co ncl uded that the e x cept ion se t fort h i n Tex as Ins urance Cod e ar ti cl e 21.49- 2U § 15 did not extend to an y i nformati on ot her

than the credi t s cor ing repor t i tse lf and thus , TD I w as re q uired to dis cl ose the i nformati on req uest ed. W e ag re e. Statutor y C onst ru cti on The matter

i s o ne of statuto ry

constr uct ion . Statu tor y co nst ru cti on i s a q uest ion of law and w e revie w th e t ria l cour t’ s a cti on de n ovo . Johns on v . Cit y o f F or t Worth, 774 S.W .2d 6 53, 6 56 ( Tex . 198 9)
. The pr imar y g oal i n sta tutor

y cons tr uct ion is to asc ertai n and g iv e effectto the l eg is lat ur e’s i ntent
. Tex . G ov ’tC ode An n. § 311.023 ( Ver non 200 5)
. In mak ing thi s d eter minat ion , w e l ook firs t t o the pl ain and common meaning of the lan g uag e of the sta tute. Fitz ger ald v. Adva nced Spi

ne F ix ati on Sy s., Inc ., 996 S. W .2d 8 64, 865 ( Tex . 199 9)
. W e mustread t he s tatut e as a w hol e and notj usti sol ated por ti ons. Tex.The onl y l a n gua ge in arti cl e 21. 49- 2U spec ific all y address ing open re cords 3 appears i n secti on 10 of the art ic le, and sta tes that the repor ts file d byinsurers under that sec ti on are publ ici nformati on and not s ubj ectto any ex cept ion from dis cl osure under the PIA. Tex . I ns. C ode An n. ar t. 21.49- 2U, § 10
. By se cti on 16 of art ic le 21. 4 9 -2 U, TDI w as re q uired to pos t t he repor t on it s 4 w ebsi te. Tex . I ns. C ode An n. ar t. 21.49- 2U, § 16
.

6 Dep’ t of Tr ansp v. City of Sun set Va lley, 146 S.W .3d 637, 642 (Tex . 2004). If the meani ng of the s tatut or

y lang uag e i s u nambig uous, w e musti nter pr et i t ac cordin g to it s t er ms, g iv ing meanin g to the l ang uag e c onsi ste nt w it h other prov is ion s i n the st atute
. Id. W e read ev ery w ord as i f it w er e del ibe ra tel y ch osen and presu me thatomi tted w ords w er e ex cl uded pur poseful ly
. Cor

nyn v. Uni ver

se Lif e Ins . C o., 988 S. W
. 2 d 3 7 6 , 379 (Tex.App .–A ustin 1999, p e t. d e n ied ). W e al so cons ide r the o bje cti v e the l aw se eks to obtai n and the cons eq uence s o f a par ti cul ar co nst ru cti on. City of Sun set Va lley, 146 S.W .3d a t 642
. He re, § 15 s peci fical ly st ates that“ The repor t r equi re d under

thi s s ect ion must inc lud e: ( 1 ) a s u mmary st atement. ..present ed i n a mann er thatprotec ts the i denti ty of individual insurers and co nsum ers[.]” T ex. Ins. Code An n. art. 2 1.4 9-2U, § 15 . (emph asis added)
. The pl ain l ang uag e of the sta tute re fers onl y to the repo rt i ts elf, no t i nformati on obtai ned by

TDI for i ts use in pr eparati on of the re port. T h e Assoc iat ion s a rg ue th at 3 r e l i a n c e o n t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e l e a d s t o a n a b s u rd r e s u l t
. We d i s a g r e e . W e see no abs urdity

i n the l eg is lat ur e’s ch oic e in § 15 to t re at t he i nformati on c ontai ned i n the w ide ly -d is semi nated re por t req uired b y t h a t s ect ion i n a mann er di ff er ent from data 4 obtai ned or

hel d by TDI
. W e presume that the l eg isla tu re ’s w ords acc uratel y reflecti ts int enti ons, and conc lud e the ide nti ty protec ti on req uired by § 15 extends onl y

to infor mati on prese nte d in the report. Our con clusion re qu ir e s a f inding the trial court did noterr i n7

det ermin ing th at th e lette rs from TDI, wi th at tach me nts (nam es an d ad dresse s redacte d), ar e not ex cept ed from d is cl osure under § 55 2.101. W e ov er ru le the A ss oci ati ons’ first poi nt of error. Relief Pursu ant

to UniformDeclaratory Jud gm ents Act By thei r sec ond i ss ue, t he As soc iat ion s c ontend the t ri al cour t er re d i n i ts deter minat ion thatthe Uni form D ecl arator y Ju dg ments Act wa s not a “p ro per bas is for re v iew of thi s a cti on,” a n d t h e P IAd id not p er mit the A ss oci ati ons to s eek an aw ard of attor ney ’s fees. W e w il l ov er ru le the i ss ue. On ap peal , t he As soc iat ion s s eek to di sti ng uis h the ir su itch a llengi ng an o pen re cords deci si on of the Atto rn ey General and seek ing the w it hhol din g of i nformati on from o th e r su ch su it s. Citi n g Tex as Educ ati

on Age ncy

v. Leeper

, 893 S.W .2d 432 (Tex. 1994 ), they as ser t t hat reli ef w as author iz ed unde r the D ecl aratory Ju d gm ents Ac t bec ause the Atto rney General’s opin ion exceed ed h is statut oryauth o ri t y byinterpret ing the Insu rance Code in a man ner to p ermit T DI to d isclose the ident ities of insurers. Th e argume nt is unp ersua siv e. T DI’s basis for w ithho lding the lette rs and at tach me nts w as tha t the y w ere made c onfidenti al by

§ 15 (b ) and t hus ex cept ed from d is cl osure by § 5 5 2 .1 01. It w as neces sar

y for t he At tor ney

Gene ra l to as ses s t he effect of § 15( b) to re nder the decision re q uired of hi m. See Tex
. Gov ’t Cod e Ann. § 55 2.306 (V er non 200 7) ( re q uir ing rendi ti on of Attor ney General’ s deci si on)
. The is sue before t he At tor ney Gene ra l, and before t he tr ial cour t, w as li ke that in other

open re cords cas es: w hether the infor mati on w as show n to be ex cept ed from d is cl osure. W e find no er ro r in the t ri al cour t’ s d eter minat ion tha t t he8

Ass oci ati ons w er e notenti tl ed to att or ney ’s fees. See also Tex . G ov ’tC ode An n. § 552.323 (V er non 19 9 9 ) (p ro v idi ng for a w ard of atto rn ey ’s fees i n ac ti ons broug ht un der so me PIA prov is ion s)
.
Hav ing ov er ru led the Ass oci ati ons’ i ss ues, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.
Jam es T . Camp bell Justice