[142]*142OPINION
Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CON-NOR, BOOCHEVER, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.
CONNOR, Justice.
In this case we are asked to determine whether AS 21.03.060,1 which reserves for the state the exclusive power to regulate the insurance industry in Alaska, prohibits a municipal equal rights commission from investigating a complaint against an insurance company alleging unfair discrimination in the failure to renew a policy. We have concluded that there is no such prohibition.
The basic facts are undisputed. On May 20, 1977, the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission (AERC) received a complaint from Waltraud Wessels. It alleged that the Allstate Insurance Company had discriminated against her solely on the grounds of marital status when it refused to renew her car insurance after she married a man with a poor driving record. She claimed that she had not sought coverage for her husband under a renewed policy but only desired to have her name changed to reflect her married status.
On June 22, 1977, the AERC issued a subpoena duces tecum requiring Allstate to appear before the Commission and to bring with it the answers to certain interrogatories.2 When Allstate failed to respond, the municipality filed a complaint in the superi- or court seeking enforcement of the administrative subpoena. An amended complaint was filed on October 25, 1977, along with a Petition to Enforce Administrative Subpoena, and a hearing on the petition was scheduled for November 14. On that date, Allstate again failed to appear and, as a result, the superior court entered an order requiring the insurance company to answer the interrogatories and submit the requested documents to the AERC within two weeks.
On November 22, 1977, Allstate filed an answer denying the allegations in the complaint and alleging, as an affirmative defense, that the AERC and superior court lacked jurisdiction over matters relating to the business of insurance by reason of AS 21.03.060.3 When Allstate failed to comply with the order of the superior court, the municipality filed a motion to show cause why Allstate should not be held in contempt. In response, Allstate moved for vacation of the November 14 order and for an order extending time to answer the interrogatories. Following a hearing on these [143]*143motions,4 the superior court denied the motion to vacate the order of November 14, declined to impose sanctions, and gave Allstate five additional days to answer the interrogatories. Allstate thereafter secured a stay of the superior court’s order and appealed to this court for relief.
Anchorage is a home rule municipality. The Alaska Constitution, article X, section 11 provides:
A home rule borough or city may exercise all legislative powers not prohibited by law or by charter.
The AERC was created by the Municipality of Anchorage to investigate and attempt to eliminate discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, education and financing practices based upon race, color, sex, religion, national origin, marital status, age, or physical handicap.5 The powers and duties of the Commission are specified in § 5.10.040 of the Anchorage Municipal Code, which provides:
The Commission may:
A. Hold public hearings and issue orders under Sections 5.30.030 and .50 of this title;
B. Administer oaths and affirmations, certify its official acts, issue subpoenas, subpoenas duces tecum, and other legal process to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of testimony, books, records, papers, accounts, documents or things in any inquiry, investigation, hearing or proceeding before the commission; the commission may petition the superior court of the State of Alaska having jurisdiction to enforce its subpoenas, subpoenas duces tecum, and other legal process;
C. Intervene in any court proceeding brought' under this title;
D. Enter into agreements with counterpart agencies at all governmental levels to promote effective and efficient enforcement of the law;
E. Grant relief described in Section 5.30.050 of this title;
F. Develop programs designed to bring about the prevention and elimination of discrimination;
G. Hire, subject to approval of the may- or, an executive director who shall serve at the pleasure of the commission;
H. Delegate to the executive director all powers and duties given it by this title, except the power to hold hearings, issue orders, and hire the executive director; and
I. Adopt procedural and evidentiary rules necessary to fulfill the intent of this title.
It is clear that the powers and duties of the Commission, as an agency of municipal government, are limited by the restrictions on the general power of the municipality. Consequently, we agree with Allstate that AS 21.03.060 prohibits the AERC from issuing any orders or rules [144]*144which would affect the business of insurance.6 Here, however, the AERC has only sought to investigate a claim of unfair discrimination, and we are unable to say that a reasonable investigation alone is prohibited. Simply stated, an investigation is not a regulation.7
While it is true that the relevant ordinances provide that the Commission shall take action to eliminate any act or practice that it finds to be discriminatory,8 it does not follow that the Commission is prohibited from investigating claims against insurance companies simply because it has no power to regulate the insurance industry. If, for example, the AERC were to conclude that a certain provision in a standardized policy, approved by the state Director of Insurance, in practice worked an invidious discrimination against certain members of the public, it could seek to remedy the problem by advising the Director of its findings and otherwise attempt to influence the state regulation. In this regard it is noteworthy that AMC 5.10.040, quoted above, states in part:
The commission may:
D. Enter into agreements with counterpart agencies at a11 levels of government to promote effective and efficient enforcement of the law; [emphasis added]
Thus, by simply gathering information, making recommendations, and focusing public interest, the AERC can serve legitimate public interests without encroaching upon the exclusive power of the state to regulate the insurance industry. Therefore, we hold that AS 21.03.060 does not prohibit a municipality from conducting reasonable investigations into alleged discriminatory practices by insurance companies, and that the enabling provisions of the relevant Anchorage municipal ordinances are not, to that extent, “substantially irreconcilable” with AS 21.03.060. See Jefferson v. State,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[142]*142OPINION
Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CON-NOR, BOOCHEVER, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.
CONNOR, Justice.
In this case we are asked to determine whether AS 21.03.060,1 which reserves for the state the exclusive power to regulate the insurance industry in Alaska, prohibits a municipal equal rights commission from investigating a complaint against an insurance company alleging unfair discrimination in the failure to renew a policy. We have concluded that there is no such prohibition.
The basic facts are undisputed. On May 20, 1977, the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission (AERC) received a complaint from Waltraud Wessels. It alleged that the Allstate Insurance Company had discriminated against her solely on the grounds of marital status when it refused to renew her car insurance after she married a man with a poor driving record. She claimed that she had not sought coverage for her husband under a renewed policy but only desired to have her name changed to reflect her married status.
On June 22, 1977, the AERC issued a subpoena duces tecum requiring Allstate to appear before the Commission and to bring with it the answers to certain interrogatories.2 When Allstate failed to respond, the municipality filed a complaint in the superi- or court seeking enforcement of the administrative subpoena. An amended complaint was filed on October 25, 1977, along with a Petition to Enforce Administrative Subpoena, and a hearing on the petition was scheduled for November 14. On that date, Allstate again failed to appear and, as a result, the superior court entered an order requiring the insurance company to answer the interrogatories and submit the requested documents to the AERC within two weeks.
On November 22, 1977, Allstate filed an answer denying the allegations in the complaint and alleging, as an affirmative defense, that the AERC and superior court lacked jurisdiction over matters relating to the business of insurance by reason of AS 21.03.060.3 When Allstate failed to comply with the order of the superior court, the municipality filed a motion to show cause why Allstate should not be held in contempt. In response, Allstate moved for vacation of the November 14 order and for an order extending time to answer the interrogatories. Following a hearing on these [143]*143motions,4 the superior court denied the motion to vacate the order of November 14, declined to impose sanctions, and gave Allstate five additional days to answer the interrogatories. Allstate thereafter secured a stay of the superior court’s order and appealed to this court for relief.
Anchorage is a home rule municipality. The Alaska Constitution, article X, section 11 provides:
A home rule borough or city may exercise all legislative powers not prohibited by law or by charter.
The AERC was created by the Municipality of Anchorage to investigate and attempt to eliminate discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, education and financing practices based upon race, color, sex, religion, national origin, marital status, age, or physical handicap.5 The powers and duties of the Commission are specified in § 5.10.040 of the Anchorage Municipal Code, which provides:
The Commission may:
A. Hold public hearings and issue orders under Sections 5.30.030 and .50 of this title;
B. Administer oaths and affirmations, certify its official acts, issue subpoenas, subpoenas duces tecum, and other legal process to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of testimony, books, records, papers, accounts, documents or things in any inquiry, investigation, hearing or proceeding before the commission; the commission may petition the superior court of the State of Alaska having jurisdiction to enforce its subpoenas, subpoenas duces tecum, and other legal process;
C. Intervene in any court proceeding brought' under this title;
D. Enter into agreements with counterpart agencies at all governmental levels to promote effective and efficient enforcement of the law;
E. Grant relief described in Section 5.30.050 of this title;
F. Develop programs designed to bring about the prevention and elimination of discrimination;
G. Hire, subject to approval of the may- or, an executive director who shall serve at the pleasure of the commission;
H. Delegate to the executive director all powers and duties given it by this title, except the power to hold hearings, issue orders, and hire the executive director; and
I. Adopt procedural and evidentiary rules necessary to fulfill the intent of this title.
It is clear that the powers and duties of the Commission, as an agency of municipal government, are limited by the restrictions on the general power of the municipality. Consequently, we agree with Allstate that AS 21.03.060 prohibits the AERC from issuing any orders or rules [144]*144which would affect the business of insurance.6 Here, however, the AERC has only sought to investigate a claim of unfair discrimination, and we are unable to say that a reasonable investigation alone is prohibited. Simply stated, an investigation is not a regulation.7
While it is true that the relevant ordinances provide that the Commission shall take action to eliminate any act or practice that it finds to be discriminatory,8 it does not follow that the Commission is prohibited from investigating claims against insurance companies simply because it has no power to regulate the insurance industry. If, for example, the AERC were to conclude that a certain provision in a standardized policy, approved by the state Director of Insurance, in practice worked an invidious discrimination against certain members of the public, it could seek to remedy the problem by advising the Director of its findings and otherwise attempt to influence the state regulation. In this regard it is noteworthy that AMC 5.10.040, quoted above, states in part:
The commission may:
D. Enter into agreements with counterpart agencies at a11 levels of government to promote effective and efficient enforcement of the law; [emphasis added]
Thus, by simply gathering information, making recommendations, and focusing public interest, the AERC can serve legitimate public interests without encroaching upon the exclusive power of the state to regulate the insurance industry. Therefore, we hold that AS 21.03.060 does not prohibit a municipality from conducting reasonable investigations into alleged discriminatory practices by insurance companies, and that the enabling provisions of the relevant Anchorage municipal ordinances are not, to that extent, “substantially irreconcilable” with AS 21.03.060. See Jefferson v. State, 527 P.2d 37, 43 (Alaska 1974).
Allstate also points out that it did eventually offer to renew Mrs. Wessel’s ear insurance policy after she filed her complaint with the AERC, that the alleged discrimination was thereby cured, and that, therefore, the AERC was without power to further inquire into the matter. In support of this argument Allstate cites § 5.30.030 of the Anchorage Municipal Code, which states in pertinent part:
[145]*145
Public Hearing.
If the commission determines that the efforts to eliminate the alleged discrimination are unsuccessful, the commission shall serve written notice, together with a copy of the complaint as it may be amended, requiring the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency charged in the complaint to answer the allegations of the complaint at a public hearing before the commission.
Allstate claims on this basis that the Commission had no authority to convene a hearing once the alleged discrimination was eliminated. We find no merit to this argument. AMC § 5.30.020 9 charges the AERC with the duty to investigate alleged discriminatory acts and practices. Since there is the possibility that Allstate’s action might have been part of a regular practice, the AERC may justifiably inquire into the matter.
As its final point on appeal, Allstate claims that it was improper for the superior court to proceed to enforce the administrative subpoena on November 14, 1977. We agree. In obtaining the November 14 hearing AERC was proceeding under the accelerated motion practice procedures set forth in Civil Rule 77(j).10 That rule requires a showing of facts which justify expediting the proceedings. Here, where the only service on Allstate was by mail on the Division of Insurance on October 31, the superior court should have carefully scrutinized the pleadings to determine whether proceeding under Rule 77 in Allstate’s absence was necessary. The only reason given by the AERC to justify such expedited proceedings was the approaching time limit of 180 days which it had to complete its investigation, and we feel this was insufficient. That deadline is not of surmounting importance since the court would be fully justified in extending it in view of the investigatory difficulties encountered by the Commission.
The lack of justification for proceedings under the expedited hearing provisions of Civil Rule 77(j), combined with serious questions as to whether Allstate received adequate actual notice of the November 14 hearing, has led us to conclude that the order of November 14 should be vacated. The case is therefore remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
RABINOWITZ, C. J., with whom BOO-CHEVER, J., joins, dissented.
BOOCHEVER, J., dissented.