TISEATTORNEUGENERAL 

OFTEXAS 

PRICE DANIEL 

ATTORNEY Gl?NERAL 

AUSTIN m.TwAs 

January 28, 1948 

Hon. E. G. Garveg 

County Auditor 

Bexar County 

San Antonio, Texas 

Opinion No. V-487 

Re: Authorltg~ of the Commlssioner's 

Court to allow the formation 

of a group life insurance plan 

for county employees and to 

authorize the county auditor 

to make salary deductions land 

act as trustee of the premlurns for such a group plan. 

Dear Sir: 

We refer to your recent letter to this Department in 

which you ask the following questions: 

?Jnder the provisions of House Bill 

No. 420, may, I, as County AudLtor, collect and pay premiums on a group insurance 

plan organized under the provisions thereof by county employees by deducting the 

premiums therefor from the various county 

pay-rolls?" 

Section 1 of H. B. 420, Acts of the 50th Leg., R. S., 

1947, is in part as follows: 

"'Section 1. No policy of group life 

Insurance shall be delivered in this State 

unless it conforms to one of the following 

descrlptlons:. . . . 

"'(3) A policy issued to an independent school aistrlct, incor+porated city, 

town or village which has assumed control 

of the public school system within such 

municipality, State colleges or universities, any association of State employees, 

any association of State and Counts employees; any~department of the State Government, which employer or association 

shall be deemed the pollcyholder, to insure the employees of any such independent 

school district and of the public school 
Hon. E. G. Garvey, page 2 (V-487) 

system of any such municipality, of any 

such State colleges and universities, of 

any such department of the State Government, members of any association of State 

employees, and members~of an? association 

of State and County emulosees for the benefit of persons other than the policyholder 

subject to the following requirements: . .I’ 

(Emphasis added) 

We are of the opinion that H. B. 420, supra, does not 

apply to an association solely of county employees, since there 

Is nothing In the context to Fndlcate such an intent on the 

part of the Legislature. To give this effect to the bill we 

would either have to strike out the words “State Andy” orcbnstrue the word “and” to mean “or”. As to the first alternative, we see no reason therefor, nor do we believe the courts 

would delete those words from the bill in order to bring county employees within Its provisions, considering the context 

of the entire Act. With reference to the second alternative, 

we realize that the courts have sometimes said that the 

words “and” and “or” are interchangeable and that one may be 

substituted for the otherif to do so is consistent with leglslative intent. However, we find nothing in the context of 

the bill which evidences such legislative intent. 

Since the Act does not provide for the formation of 

an association of county employees solely, and since it does 

not contain any provision authorizing the county auditor to 

cbllect and pay premiums therefor from the county employees” 

salaries , you are respectfully advised that in the absence’ of 

such authority it is the opinion of this Department that the 

county auditor cannot collect and pay premiums on such a group 

insurance plan under the provisions of said Act. 

However, such county employees as may be members of ab 

association of State and County employees may be insured under 

the provisions of this Act. Nevertheless, there are no provlslons In the Act whereby the county may pay any part of the 

premiums of the group policy. 

Further, county employees may voluntarily band together 

as Individuals under ttieir inherent rights and secure benefits under the group plan, just the same as if they were lneluded in the bill, except there Is no provision for the 

county to obtain this for them, nor has the county any right 

to withhold. any part of the employees’ wages, even with their 

consent. 

We call your attention to H. B. 665, Acts of the 50th 
;’ - 

Hon. E. G. Garvey, page 3 (‘J-W’) 

Leg., R.S., which empowers county employees to combine for the 

purpose of buying policies of group health, accident, and accidental death insurance. We are enclosing a copy of our 

Opinion No. v-488, which construes the provisions of said Act, 

SUMMARY 

The county auditor cannot collect and 

pay~premiums for a group consisting solely 

of county employees on a group insurance 

plan under the provisions of H. B. 420, Acts 

of the 50th Leg., R. S., 1947. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

BA:djm:mw:wc 

By s/Bruce Allen 

Bruce Allen 

Assistant 

APPROVED: 

s/Price Daniel 

ATTORNEY GENERAL