Opinion ID: 1600313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conflict with La.R.S. 22:743

Text: We now turn our attention to the relationship between La.R.S. 49:258 and La. R.S. 22:743. La.R.S. 22:743, which provides for the appointment of assistants to the Commissioner of Insurance in insurance company liquidation or rehabilitation proceedings, states: [T]he commissioner of insurance shall have power to appoint one or more special deputies, as his agent or agents and to employ such clerks, assistants, attorneys, or solicitors as may by him be deemed necessary, and to give each of such persons such powers to assist him as he may consider wise. The compensation of every such special deputy, agent, clerk, assistant, attorney, or solicitor shall be fixed, and all expenses of taking possession of the property of the insurer and the administration thereof shall be approved, by the commissioner of insurance, all subject to the approval of the court, and shall be paid out of the funds or assets of the insurer. (Emphasis added). The Commissioner maintains the appointment of attorneys to represent him when acting as a fiduciary of a financially distressed insurance company is governed by specific provisions of the Louisiana Insurance Code which provide for the liquidation or rehabilitation of failed insurance companies. [8] Specifically, the Commissioner asserts La.R.S. 22:743 authorizes him to select legal counsel to assist him in all liquidation or rehabilitation proceedings. In contrast, the Attorney General claims La.R.S. 49:258 and 22:743 complement rather than contradict one another. The Attorney General contends La.R.S. 49:258 provides for the appointment of attorneys, whereas La.R.S. 22:743 merely provides for their employment. [9] In the alternative, the Attorney General argues that La.R.S. 49:258 repeals by implication the language in La.R.S. 22:743 relating to the appointment of attorneys by the Insurance Commissioner in insurance insolvency proceedings. We find no merit in the Attorney General's argument that the two statutes are not contradictory. Undoubtedly, the legislative intent of La.R.S. 49:258 becomes uncertain when read in connection with La.R.S. 22:743. Thus, when La.R.S. 22:743 is considered, the question before the court becomes whether the legislature intended to alter the method by which attorneys are selected to assist the Insurance Commissioner in insurance insolvency proceedings. As liquidator or rehabilitator of an insurance company the Insurance Commissioner acts as an officer of the state to protect the interests of the public, the policy holders, the creditors, and the insurer. See, State v. Preferred Accident Ins. Co. of New York, 238 La. 372, 115 So.2d 384 (1959); LeBlanc v. Bernard, 554 So.2d 1378 (La. App. 1st Cir.1989). The Insurance Commissioner's role as such does not involve the assertion or protection of any state interest or right. [10] The interests served by the Insurance Commissioner are far removed from the state's pecuniary interest in defending claims brought against the state. [11] Accordingly, we believe that in passing La. R.S. 49:258, the legislature did not intend to allow the attorney general, an officer whose principal duties involve the assertion and protection of state rights and interests, to appoint attorneys to assist the Insurance Commissioner in insurance insolvency proceedings. Although the above conclusion is adequately supported by the legislative intent behind the statute, we would be remiss if we did not analyze the conflict between the statutes in accordance with the rules of statutory construction. The Attorney General maintains La.R.S. 49:258, as the more recent expression of legislative will, supersedes any part of La.R.S. 22:743 regarding the appointment of attorneys. However, the Attorney General's position overlooks two important principles of statutory construction. First, the Attorney General's argument ignores the nature and scope of the two statutes at issue. La.R.S. 22:743 is a specific statute applying to proceedings in which the Insurance Commissioner has been appointed liquidator or rehabilitator of an insolvent insurance company. La. R.S. 49:258, on the other hand, is a general statute which provides for the appointment of legal representation by the attorney general in certain cases involving the state or a state agency. Where there is no clear indication of legislative intent to repeal, a specific statute will not be repealed by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 445, 107 S.Ct. 2494, 2499, 96 L.Ed.2d 385 (1987); Macon v. Costa, 437 So.2d 806, 809-10 n. 3 (La.1983); James v. Orange Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 195 So.2d 183, 187 (La.App. 1st Cir.1967). There is absolutely no indication the legislature in enacting La.R.S. 49:258 intended to repeal or amend the method by which attorneys are selected to assist the Insurance Commissioner in insolvency proceedings. As stated previously, the legislative purpose behind La.R.S. 49:258 was to allow the attorney general to appoint private legal counsel in certain cases involving claims against the state. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the Attorney General's position neglects the well established principle that repeal by implication is not favored and is justified only when two statutes are irreconcilable. Smith v. Trosclair, 321 So.2d 514 (La.1975); State v. Jones, 220 La. 381, 56 So.2d 724, 726 (1951); Wenk v. Anisman, 211 La. 641, 30 So.2d 567, 571 (1947). If two statutes can be reconciled by a fair and reasonable interpretation, we must read the statutes so as to give effect to each. Johnson v. Sewerage Dist. No. 2 of the Parish of Caddo, 239 La. 840, 120 So.2d 262, 268 (1960). Clearly, the statutes in this case can be reconciled by construing La.R.S. 49:258 as inapplicable to the appointment of counsel to represent the Insurance Commissioner when he is acting in his capacity as liquidator or rehabilitator of a financially troubled insurance company pursuant to the Insurance Code. The narrow construction we have given to La.R.S. 49:258 eliminates any possible conflict with La.R.S. 22:743 while affording each statute a fair and reasonable construction.