Waiting for Godot: TWIA style

Sometimes, watching a TWIA board meeting is like watching an absurdist French play. In Waiting for Godot, Samuel Becket presents a two hour play in which the two characters Vladimir and Estragon waste away their existence waiting endlessly for “Godot,” who is clearly never coming. Substitute an Attorney General opinion authorizing an assessment against Texas insurers for Godot and at least some TWIA board members for Vladimir and Estragon and you get an almost perfect re-interpretation of the 1950s French existentialist classic.

Offering a carrot in Waiting for Godot

To be less high-falutin’, however, when the TWIA board spend hours saying they want to “delay” consideration of an assessment in 2013 of Texas Insurers for 2008’s Hurricane Ike until the Texas Attorney General opines that they have the power to do so, they are wasting time on something that will never happen.  To begin with, contrary to a myth that seems to have received its genesis at yesterday’s board meeting, the Texas Attorney General has not been directly asked (yet) whether TWIA currently now has authority to assess insurers for Ike. Of course, the TWIA board can wile away its time on whatever diversion it chooses; we all probably do that.  But when TWIA sees its exposure growing at 4% per year, acknowledges that it is barely solvent if one counts a paltry catastrophe reserve trust fund, acknowledges that its rates are not actuarially sound, and realizes that not a single of its legislative recommendations got any traction, a focus on this pipe dream rather than a relentless look at reality looks — and is — absurd.

The TWIA board considers an assessment

The TWIA board considers an assessment

One reason the Texas Attorney General will not provide what some TWIA board members claim to await is that no one asked the Attorney General to do so. The only pending attorney general request for an opinion that relates to TWIA comes from Corpus Christi Texas House Representative Todd Hunter in RQ-1134-GA filed in July of 2013.  But that request does not ask whether TWIA has the authority to issue an assessment today under a statute that was repealed in 2009. Rather, it asks whether it would be “negligence and/or a failure of authority or responsibility of duties” for TWIA not to assess today. But, as anyone with a background in law knows, it is quite possible for TWIA to have the authority to do something and yet, in the exercise of its business judgment, not to be “negligent” or in breach of its duties not to do so. Unless, therefore, Attorney General Abbott, a current gubernatorial candidate, is eager to step into this highly politicized thicket and lose votes on the Texas coast, he can answer the questions posed without addressing the core issue of whether TWIA has authority to assess. Only if the Attorney General wants to go out of his way to find that TWIA is negligent in assessing today would he have an obligation to resolve the predicate question of whether TWIA has authority to do so.

Moreover, to pretend that there might really be an affirmative answer to the authority question or that, really, the matter is quite unclear is, I fear, at best an exercise in undue politeness. For reasons I have set forth before here, here and here, this is, on reflection, not a particularly close question. The statute that gave TWIA authority to make the kind of half billion dollar assessment it came within one vote of making yesterday was repealed in 2009. It was repealed — by at least one of the legislators who yesterday urged an assessment — in favor of a system that provided a different system for financing losses after a tropical storm. It was repealed in part precisely because under the old system the Texas fisc was directly jeopardized by a TWIA assessment: insurers got to credit payments of the assessment against otherwise owing premium taxes.

It is just preposterous to think that the Texas legislature, if it wanted to prevent assessments for new storms but leave assessment authority in place for old storms would have chosen simply to repeal the old law rather than place a temporal limitation on the authority to assess. It is bizarre to think that if Texas was willing to place its continuing fisc in jeopardy for old storms but not for new, it would not have done something a little more nuanced that simply repealing the old law. It is even more peculiar to suggest, as may have been done yesterday, that Texas magically preserved the ability to assess for Ike but repealed the premium tax credit so as to preserve its fisc.  If it did so, that provision of the statute must have been written in invisible ink.  If TWIA’s lawyers are, as is claimed, actually telling board members, some of whom may not want to hear it, that the matter is ambiguous, that is a failure of courage or competence over reason.

But, actually, it was not so much parallels to Samuel Beckett that troubled me most in watching the TWIA board meeting yesterday.  It was the parallel to Franz Kafka and other writers who focus on tyranny. Here’s the most troubling quote: “I would have to support this assessment because it would be good for the policyholders and that’s who we represent and that’s basically who I’d have to be in support of.”  (1:42 to 1:43 of this recording) Sorry, but at best that is a hopelessly shallow analysis.  It might be equally “good” for the policyholder if Texas insurance agents had their homes confiscated and sold to pay for Ike losses or if Michael Dell was told he had to personally recapitalize TWIA.  Although Texas insurers may have a good deal of money and it takes a little imagination to see State Farm or Allstate as the victims of tyranny, the fact that a government-sponsored entity may “need” money for some public good is not authority to reach into the bank account of anyone — insurer, wealthy person or poor person — and simply take their money without legislative authorization. That is true even if the insurance industry “got away” with paying too low an assessment back in 2008. And, since Texas courts are likely to agree with this point, it is in fact not good for policyholders to have their money wasted paying lawyers defending an indefensible position.

Footnote 1: This is not to say that asking whether TWIA was negligent in not assessing more heavily back in 2009 is a bad question or an easy question. I adhere to my view that this is a reasonable question.  I am just saying that an answer to this question will not provide guidance on whether TWIA can legally assess today.