THE ATFORNEY GENERAL 

OFTEXAS 

JOEN Ia. EILL 

Arnwrm% TEXAS 78711 

*TroRNmY O-Ard August 14, 1973 

The Honorable Jack K. Williams 

President, Texas A & M 

University 

College Station, Texas 77843 

Opinion No. H- 86 

Re: Entitlement to and 

maximum State contribution 

for insurance coverage. 

Dear Mr. Williams: 

You have requested our opinion on several questions having to do with 

the authorized State contribution to the premiums of group insurance policies insuring State employees. Articles 3. 50 and 3. 51 of the Texas Insurance 

Code authorize group policies of life. and health insurance. As amended by 

Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 1002, ch. 437, ‘Article 3. 51 now permits .State agencies and 

certain political subdivisions of the State to pay premiums on such policies 

“in whole or in part from funds contributed by the employer. I’ 

Your first question is whether the current rider to the General Appropriations Act for 1974-1975 limits the State’s contribution to not in excess 

of $12. 50 per month for credit to the premium of each full-time employee. 

The rider provides: 

‘I.. . The state’s contribution per full-time 

individual employee covered by any policy or 

policies shall not be greater than Twelve Dollars 

and Fifty Cents ($12. 50) per month for each 

month of the insurance contract year. The 

method used to calculate the total yearly amount 

to be paid by agencies covered by this Act shall 

be One Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($150) times 

the number of employees actually covered under 

any policy or policies. . . . ” (Acts 1973, H.B. 

139, V-38, $10) 

p. 390 
The Honorable Jack K. Williams, page 2 (H-86) 

The rider contained in the 1971 General Appropriations Act was less 

precise in its meaning. It simply read: 

‘1. . . Payment by the state from the designated 

funds on any policy or policies shall be limited 

to Twelve Dollars and Fifty Cents ($12. 50) per 

month per full-time employee. ‘I (Acts 1971, 62nd 

Leg., 1st. C. S., Art. V., $10, p. V-38) 

Attorney General Opinion M-919 (1971) construed the 1971 restriction 

to define a monthly aggregate expenditure reached by multiplying $12. 50 times 

the number of full-time employees on the departmental payroll. It declared 

that neither Articles 3. 50 or 3. 51 of the Insurance Code, or the Appropriation 

Bill rider placed a minimum or a maximum on the contribution that a department might make to the cost of premiums on an individual employee. 

Subsequently, the language of the rider was an-ended to provide: 

‘1. . * The maximum payment by the State for any 

individual employee on any policy or policies shall 

not exceed Twelve Dollars and Fifty Cents ($12. 50) 

per month per full-time employee . . . . I’ (Acts 

1971, 62nd Leg., 3rd C.S., S.B.1, p.V-37, $10) 

Attorney General Opinion M-1229 (1972) ruled that no substantial change in 

effect had been made by the changed language and that the conclusions made by 

Attorney General Opinion M-919 remained operative. 

We need not determine whether those prior opinions were correct. The 

new language of the rider in House Bill 139, coupled with the unusually frequent 

change in the language of corresponding riders over the years, is evidence that 

a different legislative intent now prevails. Under House Bill 139 the aggregate 

yearly amount expendable is controlled by the language: “$150 time the number 

of employees actually covered by any policy or policies. ” We think the unqualified word “employees” includes part-time employees. We are of the opinion 

that the $12. 50 “per full-time employee ” limitation is intended to signify the 

maximum permissible monthly contribution toward the cost of the premiums 

for any individual full-time employee , or combined part-time equivalents. 

p. 391 
The Honorable Jack K. Williams, page 3 (H-86) 

In our opinion the rider is not in conflict with, nor does it amend, .any 

general legislation. It does limit, detail and restrict the use of State funds 

appropriated by line-item for insurance purposes and is for that reason 

“germane” to the subject of appropriations and not violative of Article 3, 

$ 35 of the Constitution. See Attorney General Opinions M-1199 (1972) and 

V-1254 (1951). 

Concerning insurance programs, the discretion conferred upon agencies 

by Article 3. 50 and 3. 51, Insurance Code, is pre-existing statutory authority for the use of State funds for payment of employee insurance premiums 

for either (or both) full-time or part-time employees. The funding of such 

a program is, as always, subject to there being an appropriation of State 

funds by the Legislature. In this instance, the Legislature has ‘authorized 

the expenditure of $12. 50 per month per full-time employee covered~by any 

policy or policies, whether in full or partial payment ,of premiums. See 

Linden v. Finley, 49 S. W. 578 (Tex. 1899), and Conley v; Daughters of the 

Republic, 156 S. W. 197 (Tex. 1913). 

In our view, “per full-time individual employee” requires a ratio approach 

to part-time employees and, at the same time, indicates a limitation upon 

payments on behalf of individual employees. The amount of premium paid 

for each part-time employee is to be dependent upon the.relationship which 

his service bears to that of a full-time employee. However, in no case would 

an individual employee, full or part-time, ever be entitled to have more than 

$12.50 par month paid toward the cost of group insurance premiums. 

Therefore, it is our opinion that House Bill 139, Acts 1973,, V-38, $10 

does limit the State’s contribution toward the cost of an individual full-time 

employee’s insurance premiums for group insurance authorized by Articles 

3. 50 and 3. 51, Texas Insurance Code, to $12. 50 per month. 

We have already answered your second question, which is whether a less 

than full-time employee should receive a proportionate contribution of State 

funds to his monthly premiums of group insurance. 

No statute requires agencies to extend insurance programs to their active 

employees, full or part-time; or, if a program is extended, to pay any portion 

of premium. The agency or university may pay all, none, or any portion of a 

p. 392 
The Honorable Jack K. Williams, page 4 (H-86) 

part-time individual’s premium whether or not it pays premiums for full-time 

employees. It must extend eligibility in life insurance programs to all employees, 

but it need not pay premiums for all of them. See Art. 3.50, ,Texas Insurance 

Code. However, if it does pay premiums for part-time employees, the maximum amount it may pay is limited by the Appropriation Bill to an amount which 

bears to $12. 50 the same ratio that the service of the part-time employee bears 

to that of a full-time employee (“per full-time individual employee”). A lesser 

contribution is within the agency’s discretion. 

Finally, you ask if a regular academic year teacher is eligible for premium 

contributions for the summer months the teacher is not teaching and is not 

otherwise on the payroll. Our answer is that if the teacher is under a contract 

of employment which continues through the summer or under a tenured contract 

which continues indefinitely, he should be considered an “employee” of the 

university for the summer months and eligible’ for State contribution to his 

premiums. If his employment is terminated in May, then he is no longer qualified to receive a contribution from the State toward his insuranc~e premiums; 

SUMMARY 

The new language restricting the use of funds 

appropriated for insurance purposes under House 

Bill 139 requires that the State’s contribution to the 

premium of any individual full-time employee “shall 

not be greater” than $12. 50 per month during any 

month of the insurance contract year. A part-time 

employee may receive a proportionate contribution 

of State funds to his insurance premiums and a 

professor, if he remains an employee over the summer 

months, is eligible to receive the State’s contribution 

for that period. 

ry truly yours, 

Attorney General of Texas 

p. 393 
The Honorable Jack K. Williams, page 5 (H-86) 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 394