May 3, 1976
Mr. James Guffey, Secretary
Commerce and Consumer Affairs
State Capitol Building
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 76-45
House Bill No. 847
Dear Mr. Guffey:
You have requested an interpretation of House Bill 847 as enacted by the 1976 Legislature. House Bill 847 amended SDCL 58-30-23 by adding the proviso clause to read as follows:
58-30-23. An individual licensed as an agent shall be trustworthy, and be of good character and reputation as to morals, integrity, and financial responsibility, and shall not have been convicted of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude; provided, however, the director of the division of insurance may, at his discretion waive the restriction relating to conviction of a felon provided five years have elapsed since completion of the term or other punishment for conviction.
You state that the substance and intent of the amendment was to give the director discretion in issuing all licenses.
The specific question you ask is whether House Bill 847 can also be interpreted to apply to SDCL 58-31-11, which is a like provision relating to life and health insurance agents’ licenses?
Statutes are to be interpreted so as to effectuate the intent of the Legislature. State v. Williamson, 211 N.W. 2d 182. However, in determining intent certain guidelines must be followed. Intention is to be ascertained primarily from the language of the statutes. Thus, amendment by implication is not favored and will generally only be upheld where the provisions of a later statute are so repugnant to an earlier statute that they cannot stand together. 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 252. In the absence of some expression of legislative intent, amendment by implication will not be allowed. Purdy v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 762.
SDCL 58-30-23 applies to “general lines insurance agents” qualifying under SDCL 58-30. On the other hand, SDCL 58-31-11 prescribes qualifications (which, except for the 1976 amendment, happen to be identical to those in SDCL 58-30-23) for life and health insurance agents. Although I am not in a position to dispute the contention in your opinion request that the intent of the legislation was to provide the director of the division of insurance with discretion in all applications, there is a total absence of that intent expressed in House Bill 847. Since SDCL 58-30-23 and SDCL 58-31-11 are provisions totally independent of each other and apply to different agents and licenses, it is my opinion that House Bill 847 cannot be interpreted as to apply to SDCL 58-31-11. The answer to your question is NO.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW
ATTORNEY GENERAL
WJJ:LLV:dh
