Opinion No. 71-254 (1971) Ag

CourtOklahoma Attorney General Reports
DecidedJune 4, 1971
StatusPublished

This text of Opinion No. 71-254 (1971) Ag (Opinion No. 71-254 (1971) Ag) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oklahoma Attorney General Reports primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Opinion No. 71-254 (1971) Ag, (Okla. Super. Ct. 1971).

Opinion

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER — ORDER OR NOTICE PROCEDURES 1. The Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner under the existing Oklahoma Statutes is authorized to issue orders and notices covering misrepresentations made by agents, actions taken by him on the approval or disapproval of policy forms, and actions withdrawing approval of policy forms previously submitted and approved. 2. The Insurance Commissioner did not follow the prescribed procedures required by law in the preparation and issuance of the subject bulletin, and the same is ineffective to accomplish the apparent intent or purpose in properly dealing with misrepresentations made by agents, issuing notice of actions to be taken by the Commissioner on policy forms submitted in the future and to withdraw approval of policy forms previously submitted and approved. 3. The Insurance Commissioner is required to follow the procedures of 36 O.S. 1412 [36-1412] (1961) in dealing with misrepresentations made by life, accident and health agents. He is required to follow the procedures prescribed by 36 O.S. 3610 [36-3610] (1970) in approving or disapproving policy forms submitted to his office for that purpose. It is further required to follow the statutory procedures contained in 36 O.S. 3610 [36-3610] (1970) and 36 O.S. 3611 [36-3611] (1961) when withdrawing approval of a policy form which has been previously approved. The Attorney General has considered your request for an opinion contained in your letter dated May 3, 1971. In your letter, you set out the following fact situation. "Attached to this request is a copy of a bulletin issued by the Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner on April 15, 1971, to all life insurance companies transacting business in Oklahoma. A copy of the same bulletin is attached to this Opinion as an exhibit "The bulletin purportedly disapproves any life insurance policy which expressly provides that a stipulated percent of the profits earned by the insurance company is to be paid as dividends to policy holders. The bulletin purportedly disapproves any such policy which has heretofore been approved for use by the Insurance Commissioner in the State of Oklahoma. "The subject bulletin was not issued after hearing and it is not directed to any specific insurance company doing business in Oklahoma. No specific policy form is referred to in the subject bulletin." In regard to these stated facts, you ask the following questions: "1. Was the issuance of the subject bulletin an authorized action by the Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner under the existing Oklahoma Statutes? "2. If the issuance of the subject bulletin by the Insurance Commissioner is authorized by the Oklahoma Statutes, did the Insurance Commissioner follow the procedures required by law in the preparation and issuance of the subject bulletin? "3. If your answer to either of the foregoing questions is in the negative, what changes would be required in the Oklahoma Insurance Code in order to authorize the Insurance Commissioner to issue the subject bulletin or what procedures would the Insurance Commissioner be required to follow in issuing such bulletin in order to make the same an effective administrative regulation?" The answer to your first question must necessarily turn on the substantive content of the bulletin itself. Although labeled "bulletin", the substantive content requires that it be considered an "order" or "notice" regardless of the caption placed on it. Insofar as the bulletin purports to put all life insurance companies on notice that the Commissioner will not consider for approval in the future any policy which contains a figure designated as a percent of the profits earned by the company to be paid as a dividend to the policyholders, the bulletin must be considered a "notice". Insofar as the bulletin purports to withdraw any such approval previously granted, it must be considered an "order". Title 36 O.S. 307 [36-307] (1970) charges the Insurance Commissioner generally with the duty of the administration and enforcement of the provisions of the Oklahoma Insurance Code, and there are numerous provisions within the Code granting him statutory authority to issue orders and notices. Because the bulletin must be considered as being both an order and notice, your first question is answered in the affirmative. The issuance of the subject bulletin was an authorized action by the Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner under the existing Oklahoma Statutes. Your second question involves whether the Insurance Commissioner followed the procedures required by law in the preparation and issuance of the subject bulletin. Title 36 O.S. 313 [36-313] (1961) provides as follows: "A. Orders and notices of the Insurance Commissioner shall not be effective unless in writing signed by him or by his authority. "B. Every such order shall state its effective date and shall concisely state: 1. Its intent or purpose. 2. The grounds on which based. 3. The provisions of this code pursuant to which action is so taken or proposed to be taken; but failure to so designate any provisions shall not deprive the Commissioner of the right to rely thereon. "C. An order or notice may be given by delivery to the person to be ordered or notified or by mailing it, postage prepaid, addressed to him at his principal place of business as last of record in the Commissioner's office." The intent or purpose of the bulletin appears clear enough. The Insurance Commissioner is notifying all life insurance companies transacting business in Oklahoma that certain policy provisions will not be considered for approval in the future and that any such approval given previously is withdrawn. The grounds upon which the order and notice is based is stated to be ". . .upon the number of complaints to this department, charging misrepresentation by agents, as to the amount of dividends prospective insureds would receive, . . ." To determine whether the Insurance Commissioner followed the procedures required by law in preparing and issuing the subject bulletin, we must examine the statutory language dealing with (1) actions by the Insurance Commissioner against agents for misrepresentation, (2) the statutory language governing the approval or disapproval of life insurance policy forms when they are initially submitted, and (3) the statutory language governing the withdrawal of an approval previously granted. Title 36 O.S. 1412 [36-1412] (1961) deals with agents who write life, accident and health insurance. It provides in part as follows: "A. A license may be refused, or a license duly issued may be suspended or revoked or the renewal thereof refused by the board if, after notice and hearing as hereinafter provided, it finds that the applicant for, or the holder of such license: . . . . has materially represented the terms and conditions of insurance policies or contracts or the financial condition or method of operation of any insurer; . . ." "B. Before any license shall be refused (except for failure to pass the required written exam), or suspended or revoked, or the renewal thereof refused hereunder, the board shall give notice of its intention so to do, by registered mail, to the applicant for, for holder of such license, and the insurer whom he represents or who desires that he be licensed, and shall set a date not less than twenty days from the date of making such notice when the applicant or licensee and a duly authorized representative of the insurer may appear to be heard and produce evidence . . .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brown v. State Election Board of the Oklahoma
1962 OK 36 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Opinion No. 71-254 (1971) Ag, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/opinion-no-71-254-1971-ag-oklaag-1971.