THEA-~-~RNJ~Y GENERAL 

OFTEXAS 

HonombleKarvfnHall 

Catmissioner, Fire I~urance Division 

Auatln, Texss 

Dear Sir: Attention: Mr. Qfrard KWeg, Supervisor, Age&a Lfcenasa. 

Opinion Bo. O-2565 

Rer Should the ImaranceDeparimid 

of Texas charge Bmi Hampshire 

Cmlpaniee a fee of $2. for all 

soliciting agenta operating out 

of recording agencies whfah have 

been appointed by said New Hmpshire ccmpanies? 

Your recent requeet for m opinion of thla Department, by letter 

dated July 31, in which you submitted the above question, Is predicated 

upon the f011owfng fnfozmation taken thereframt 

*Aeoording to information which Thea offfee has been able 

to obtain frm the @cximfasioner of Immranee of New Hampshdrs, it 

wouhi appear that for allworking purposes, the New Ham shepe 

system is 'fdentfealwith that of Kansas and that the z-&l& 

furnhhed ua by your Department relative to the Km&a matter 

would a.Uo apply to eompsrnfes domiefled in Hew Hampshire.: The 

outstanding difference in the proceQurc followtd 118 these two 

state8 ia Me faot t&t in Kansas, a fee is charged for each 

imifvfdualj wherese, in Hew Hampshire, a fee fs charged for the 

ffrm m a whole; however, from nmerom atatamntamade by the 

Camnfesfoner of Inmaranbe of Rev Hampshire, it would appear that 

cad sub-agent workfng for an agency must have a sepsrate license 

f"or which a $2.00 fee fa charged each eompmy he represents. St ia 

0~3" belief that the,esntroversy arises out of the fad that the 

ageney system of Texas differs 80 greatly from that of New 

Hmp8hire. 

%an all availablla data, it appears that the iGwHampshfre 

sgatem is W&is Before an indfvfaualmay eolicft or write bueiness, a lieems mast be obtained for him from the Ibv Hampshire 

Xnmranoe Departient ba the inmzmxe company. A fei? of $2.00 

fs charged for this Picenae. In an agency In which more than 

one person ccmpr~es the ffrm and Sn which nmerous sub-agents 
Honorable Marvin Hall, Page 2 (O-2585) 

are “.pl.oyed, the aaae type of license Is held by the firm 

and eaoh sub-agent. The same fee ie charged, and the agents 

ownot produo bwinese for any ocmpany for whioh t&y have 

not been properly lloenaetl. In Texas, on the other hand, 

a reoording ageaoy irr appointed for variouf~ ocmpauler. The 

a@tIOY in tUrn, appointtl VWi0u6 EmlioitoX’a, ad rlnoe Texan 

law rrwirrr curly one of the oompaaler in the agenoy’r offioe 

to join in ‘#IO appolntamt, It lo quite probable that moot of 

the oomp~fe~ reprerented by the reoording agenoy have no 

lamfledge of the mnuber or Identity of the solloltorfa working 

out of their agenoy’s offioej however, any one of I&I solioitom lioeneed to repPesent the recording agency haa authority 

to produce business whioh may be placed by the agenoy with any 

of the ompmfes for which it ia lioenatd. 

*Our oontentlm in the premirea Is this: that In-oh 

am a Texrs oanpany lmust pay $2.00 to the DepartPent of Inanrance 

of llew Hampshire for every agenoy and sub-agent hold- autbority’in the State of New Hapehire to produce business for eald 

Texao oc@any, this Department mu&, in order to properly etioroe 

the Retaliatory Law, Art. 4758, exact a simmilar fee again& a 

Hew Hampshire sompany dofng business in Texas for all agencies 

ana solicitors holding authority fn thfs state to prodlice 

buaineaa faa this state for said New Hanpshfre company. For 

the purpose of applying thie law, it weuld aseem to ua *at a 

solfcftor In Texas is t&e came a a eubagent i~lew Hampshire.* 

Aoeepting the infolmatfpn above quoted from your letter ao 

correct, that eaoh sub-agent working for a Hew Hampshfre agenoy is aaaaessed 

a $2. lieenaa fee charged for each sompany he repTeeent8, wd see no reason 

why your a&ion in applyfng the retaliatory ssaessment on the number of 

solfoftora in Texas representing the New Hampshire ccapmy and working 

out of fte Texas reaordfng agency, is not proper. For the purpose of applying the retaliatory law, there is no material diatinotion b&seen a 

sub-agent in New Hampshire and a aolfcitor in Texas. And tither, the 

faot that the agent’s U@?JXWJ fee is charged for the agency and not each 

individual ccmpoaing the agency does not concern the questian here, involving *solicitors* or “sub-agents” working out of and produoing business 

through such agenotes. The feeuence of licenses in this respect by the 

Commission of Insurance in the State of Bew Hampshire is similar to those 

issued In Texas0 Section 3, Article 5062a, Vernon’s C~ivil Statutes of 

Texas, prevfdea in part ae followar 

* D 0 0 The board is authorized to issue licenses to 

fixma or to individuala engagbg M partiers in the insurance 

busfsess provided the in-e8 of all peraone interoated in auch 

firm are nuned fi the lfcenae, and providea, further, that all 

lioenaed agents must be residents of Texafi . . . .* 

-i 
Honorable MuMn Hall, Page 3 (O-2585) 

Seotion 2, Article 5062a, Vernon"s Civil Statutes, defines the 

term *solloitor" (LB followsi 

*By the term p6011pitor~ is meant a pemion off4olng with, 

end sd in, rolioitlng lnmrmos on behalf of a Iaoal 

Reoordlng &ant, who doer not rQn ard exeoute policies of 

inmranot, and who does not maintalxn ocmpany reoords of such 

tranMc.t1ons. e e e* 

1twfl.l be noted that Section 1 of safd stat&e epeeffioalQ 

ela.seif%es "aolicftors' a~ "insurance agenta.* While the above quoted 

Section 2 of the Act lfmfta the autiorfty 0:P solfoftors in some respects, 

their acts in eolfeftfng cm produnzing Insurance business, au& as befng 

%a~m0a with application 'ble4nk5, proourfug s%(plaii;ures to same, oolleotlng 

and transmitting premkx@ and deifvering policies &nd receipts are those 

generally engaged in by Weub-agenta, * "speefal' agenta, OP by whatever n&me 

they may be called. 

In ~on~lu~fon, we think our opfnfon O-1997 applicable to the 

question here presented and it 1s o-tar further opinion that your departamnt 

is authorized to ffih~pge New Haxkpshtis eamparniea a fee of $2. for all 

eolfoftfng agents ha9ding adharity to solfaft business for said foreign 

eaupanfes and operating cmt or Texas recording argenefas whfeh have been 

appointed by said Bear Hanip~hfre ecmpanies. 

Yours very trdy 

A'PB3YGEIiERALOFTEXAS 

B,? /a/ Wm. Jo B, King 

Wm. JT, R. King 

Assfatant 

APPROVED AlJG 21, 1940 

/8/ Grayer Sellera 

FIRST ASSISTANT ATPOFUDX GENERAL 

WRKa~-ds 

AFPROVED 

OPIIBIOM 

col4lmTzE 

BY /8/ Rg&g. 

c-