Can an Idaho state agency agree to indemnify the federal government in a permit, name the United States as an additional insured under Idaho's self-insurance program, or otherwise commit Idaho funds to private-insurance-style coverage limits?

Subject

Whether the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (or any other Idaho state agency) could agree to (1) contractual indemnification of the United States in a USDA permit, (2) naming the United States as an "additional insured" under Idaho's self-insurance program, or (3) per-occurrence and aggregate coverage limits modeled on private commercial general liability policies.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2019. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Plain-English summary

The U.S. Department of Agriculture asked Idaho's Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) to insert specific liability and indemnification clauses into permits for USDA sites. The USDA's proposal had three parts: (1) IDFG would indemnify the United States for any liability arising under the permit; (2) IDFG would procure a $1M-per-occurrence / $2M-aggregate commercial general liability policy naming the United States as an additional insured; or (3) USDA would accept Idaho's self-insurance arrangement if Idaho would name the United States as an "additional insured" up to the same dollar limits. IDFG asked the AG whether these terms were lawful under Idaho law.

The AG's three-part answer:

1. State agencies cannot indemnify another contracting party absent specific legislative authorization plus appropriation. The Idaho Constitution's debt limitation (art. VIII, § 1) and the appropriation requirement (art. VII, § 13) bar an agency from incurring an indefinite, contingent obligation that might be drawn from the treasury without legislative authorization. Idaho Code § 59-1015, enacted in 1914, makes it a violation for any state officer or board to "enter . . . any contract or agreement creating any expense, or incurring any liability, moral, legal or otherwise . . . in excess of the appropriation made by law for the specific purpose." Two follow-on sections (§§ 59-1016, 59-1017) make any violating contract term void and impose penalties on the offending officer. In 2015, the legislature reaffirmed in IDAPA 38.05.01.112.02.a. that indemnification terms without specific appropriation are void under § 67-9213. The legislature has authorized indemnification in narrow areas (employee acts in scope of employment, § 6-903; unclaimed property administrator, § 14-520), each paired with a corresponding fund. Where no statute expressly authorizes indemnification with funding, the agency cannot agree to it.

2. The "subject to" the Idaho Tort Claims Act limit doesn't fix the problem. USDA had offered standard Forest Service language indemnifying the United States "subject to" Idaho's tort-claims-act limits. The AG noted that the Idaho Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity for tort claims up to a statutory cap, but it does not address contractual liability such as indemnification agreements. Adding "subject to Idaho law" to a contractual indemnification doesn't cure the constitutional defect. The AG cited a 1999 Mississippi opinion that took the same position.

3. Idaho's retained risk program is not insurance, cannot grant "additional insured" status, and has no private-policy-style dollar limits. The Idaho retained risk program (Idaho Code § 6-919) is administered by the Department of Administration's Risk Management division and funded by the continuously appropriated retained risk account (§ 67-5776). It is not a policy of insurance under Idaho law (§§ 41-102, 41-103) because it isn't a contract between Idaho and any other party. Third parties cannot make claims against the retained risk account; the account pays only Idaho's own losses on property and risks eligible at the time of loss. There is no per-occurrence or aggregate coverage limit under Idaho law except as imposed by the Tort Claims Act. So the retained risk program cannot be modified to look like commercial general liability coverage for a third party. The AG suggested that if private insurance is needed, IDFG must request that the Director of the Department of Administration consider procurement (§ 67-5773), and only the Risk Administrator may procure (§ 6-920). Even then, naming a third party as additional insured "could raise legal concerns" because two state AGs (Florida 2000, Oklahoma 2007) have concluded it amounts to an indirect indemnification.

The AG suggested template Idaho language for federal-state agreements, focusing on each party's responsibility for its own employees' acts, omissions, and negligence, and disclaiming responsibility beyond what is required by law (including for Idaho the Idaho Tort Claims Act).

Common questions

Q: Why couldn't Idaho agree to indemnify the United States?

The Idaho Constitution requires legislative appropriation before any money is drawn from the treasury (art. VII, § 13). It also limits the State's ability to incur debt (art. VIII, § 1). An indemnification is an open-ended contingent obligation: if a claim arises later, Idaho would have to pay. Without a legislative appropriation specifically funding that obligation, the agency cannot bind the State to pay the unknown future amount. Idaho Code § 59-1015 codifies this.

Q: What is the Idaho retained risk program?

A self-insurance arrangement administered by the State Risk Management division. It pays losses suffered by Idaho on State property and risks. It is not insurance in the traditional sense because it is not a contract with a third party. It cannot insure other parties or set commercial-style coverage limits.

Q: Where did the AG identify acceptable federal-state contract language?

The AG provided a template (excerpted in the opinion's "Template Idaho Terms" section). The core idea: each party is responsible for the acts, omissions, and negligence of its own employees and agents, with no extension of tort responsibility beyond what statutes already require. Property damage is allocated to the responsible party. Insurance evidence is provided through certificates of financial responsibility or evidence of self-insurance.

Q: Did this conclusion match what other states have done?

Yes. The AG cited concurring opinions from New Mexico (2010), Mississippi (2006), Oklahoma (2006), Alaska (2005), Ohio (1996), Florida (1995), South Carolina (1989), Wisconsin (1989), Maryland (1986), Tennessee (1982), Texas (1982), Washington (2013), Louisiana (2006), Oregon (2008), Virginia (1985-86), and Georgia (1980). Federal agencies face a similar prohibition under the Anti-Deficiency Act (8 Op. O.L.C. 94 (1984)).

Q: Is there another way to seek coverage for a USDA permit?

The opinion identifies two distinct questions. A contractual indemnity must be funded by a specific legislative appropriation; it cites narrow existing statutory examples. For private liability insurance, IDFG may ask the Director of Administration to consider its need under Idaho Code § 67-5773, and the Risk Administrator procures any policy under § 6-920. The opinion cautions that naming the United States as an additional insured on such a policy could raise separate legal concerns.

Background and statutory framework

The Idaho Constitution sets the structural backdrop:

• Art. VII, § 13: "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in pursuance of appropriations made by law."
• Art. VIII, § 1: limits state indebtedness.

Idaho Code § 59-1015 (enacted 1914) translates these constitutional commands into specific prohibition: no officer, employee, or state board may enter a contract creating expense or liability "in excess of the appropriation made by law for the specific purpose." Sections 59-1016 and 59-1017 invalidate violating terms and penalize officers.

The retained risk framework:

• § 6-919 establishes the retained risk program, administered by the Director of the Department of Administration through the Division of Insurance Management (Risk).
• § 67-5776 establishes the retained risk account as a continuously appropriated fund, used only for purposes specified in the statute.
• § 6-920 makes the Risk Administrator the exclusive procurer of private liability insurance for the State.
• § 67-5773 requires the Director to determine the nature and extent of agency private-insurance needs.

The Idaho Tort Claims Act (§ 6-901 et seq.) waives sovereign immunity for tort claims up to a statutory cap. It does not waive immunity for contract claims and does not authorize agencies to assume contractual indemnification obligations.

Where indemnification is permitted, Idaho law pairs the authorization with a corresponding fund: § 6-903 (employee acts) with § 6-919 (retained risk account); § 14-520 (unclaimed property holder) with § 14-523 (unclaimed property account).

The AG opinion synthesizes Idaho law with two prior in-house advisories (1979 Idaho Att'y Gen. Ann. Rpt. 77; 1982 Idaho Att'y Gen. Ann. Rpt. 117) and surveys parallel conclusions from other state AGs and the federal Office of Legal Counsel.

Citations

• Idaho Const. art. VII, § 13 (appropriation requirement)
• Idaho Const. art. VIII, § 1 (debt limitation)
• Idaho Code § 6-901 et seq. (Idaho Tort Claims Act)
• Idaho Code § 6-903 (employee scope-of-employment indemnification)
• Idaho Code § 6-919 (retained risk program)
• Idaho Code § 6-920 (Risk Administrator's exclusive procurement authority)
• Idaho Code § 6-922 (limit on unfunded tort liability)
• Idaho Code § 14-520 (unclaimed property holder indemnification)
• Idaho Code § 14-523 (unclaimed property account)
• Idaho Code § 41-102, § 41-103 (definitions of insurance and insurer)
• Idaho Code § 59-1015 (no liability in excess of appropriation; 1914)
• Idaho Code § 59-1016 (void terms)
• Idaho Code § 59-1017 (penalties)
• Idaho Code § 67-5773 (Director determines private-insurance needs)
• Idaho Code § 67-5776 (retained risk account)
• Idaho Code § 67-9213 (procurement-rules indemnification limit)
• IDAPA 38.05.01.112.02.a. (procurement rules)
• 1979 Idaho Att'y Gen. Ann. Rpt. 77; 1982 Idaho Att'y Gen. Ann. Rpt. 117 (prior Idaho)
• Indemnification Agreements & the Anti-Deficiency Act, 8 Op. O.L.C. 94 (1984)
• Concurring opinions from NM (2010), MS (2006, 1999), OK (2007, 2006), AK (2005), OH (1996), FL (2000, 1995), SC (1989), WI (1989), MD (1986), TN (1982), TX (1982), WA (2013), LA (2006), OR (2008), VA (1985-86), GA (1980)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.idaho.gov/office-resources/opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2019/11/Opinion-19-1.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF IDAHO
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LAWRENCE G. WASD EN

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 19-1

TO:

Ed Schriever, Director
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25
Boise , ID 83707
Per Request for Attorney General's Opinion

This letter responds to your questions concerning terms required by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in permits for USDA sites. Specifically, the USDA has requested that the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) indemnify the United States and that it provide commercial insurance policies naming the United States as an additional insured . Alternatively, the USDA has offered that it will accept a self-insurance program if the State of Idaho names the United States as an insured and the program provides coverage up to the limits of the requ ired commercial insurance. QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1.

Can the State of Idaho contract to indemnify another party to an agreement?

2.

Does the State of Idaho's self-insurance program offer status as an additional insured for a party to an agreement with the State of Idaho?

3.

Is there a limit to payments under the State of Idaho's selfinsurance program? CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed below, I conclude that the terms requested by the USDA are contrary to Idaho law. Unless funded by a specific appropriation, a

P.O. Box 83720, Boise, Idaho 83720-001 O
Telephone: (208) 334-2400, FAX: (208) 854-8071
Located at 700 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 21 O

Ed Schriever
Page - 2

contractual indemnification obligation violates the Idaho Constitution and Idaho statutes based on the Constitution. Idaho law also does not establish a program of insurance for the State of Idaho with authority to name parties contracting with the state as additional insureds or provide specific limits of payment similar to private insurance coverage.

ANALYSIS
A.

A Contractual Indemnification Must be Funded by Legislative Appropriation

An indemnification is a contractual promise to pay for and provide a legal defense for a claim related to the contract and made against another contracting party. In addition, an indemnification is a promise to pay any costs arising from the claim, such as costs imposed through a settlement or court judgement. When the promise will be called is indefinite. An indemnification obligation can arise during the current Idaho budget year or in a future budget year. In Idaho Attorney General Opinion No. 79-13, the Attorney General opined that a contractual indemnity clause where a city and a county agreed to hold the federal government harmless from contingent or tort damages arising from the federal government's acts or omissions under the agreement would likely violate the Idaho Constitution's limit of indebtedness by local governments. 1979 Idaho Att'y Gen. Ann. Rpt. 77. Although the Attorney General has not issued a formal opinion concerning contractual indemnity terms for state agencies, it has consistently advised that such terms are in violation of Idaho law. The Idaho Constitution contains a limitation on indebtedness by the State of Idaho that parallels the provision for local governments. Idaho Const. art. VIII,
§ 1. In addition, the Idaho Constitution provides that "[n]o money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in pursuance of appropriations made by law." Idaho Const. art. VII, § 13. The Idaho Legislature has further defined the limits established by the Idaho Constitution in statute. The following prohibition, first enacted in 1914, provides: No officer, employee or state board of the state of Idaho, or board of regents or board of trustees of any state institution, or any member, employee or agent thereof, shall enter, or attempt to offer to enter into any contract or agreement creating any expense, or incurring any liability, moral, legal or otherwise, or at all, in excess of the appropriation made by law for the specific purpose or purposes for which such expenditure is to be made, or

Ed Schriever
Page - 3

liability incurred, except in the case of insurrection, epidemic, invasion, riots, floods or fires. Idaho Code § 59-1015; see 1982 Idaho Att'y Gen. Ann. Rpt. 117 (opining that Idaho Code section 59-1015 prohibits establishing a debt or liability in excess of an appropriation that is for the debt or liability and exists at the time the debt or liability is incurred). The two Idaho Code sections following this prohibition provide that any term in violation of the prohibition is void and penalize public officials who enter agreements with a term imposing an unappropriated expense. Idaho Code
§§ 59-1016 and 59-1017. In 2015, the Idaho Legislature specifically affirmed in the Rules of the Division of Purchasing that terms imposing an indemnification obligation without a specific appropriation for the obligation are void under Idaho Code section 67-9213. IDAPA 38.05.01 .112.02.a. In limited circumstances, an indemnification obligation is authorized by the Idaho Legislature. See Idaho Code §§ 6-903 (providing for indemnification of public employees acting in the course and scope of employment), 14-520 (providing that the unclaimed property administrator shall indemnify and defend a holder delivering unclaimed property to the administrator in good faith against a claim for the property delivered). In the instances where indemnification is authorized in Idaho statute, a corresponding fund for payment of the resulting costs is also established. See Idaho Code §§ 6-919 (establishing the retained risk program funded by the retained risk account) and 14-523 (authorizing payments from the continuously appropriated unclaimed property account); see also, Idaho Code § 6-922 (limiting unfunded tort liability to payment from appropriations for such liability). Absent legislative authorization and corresponding appropriation, an indemnification violates article VII, section 13 and article VIII, section 1 of the Idaho Constitution; Idaho Code section 59-1015; and, where IDAPA 38.05.01.112.02.a. is applicable, Idaho Code section 67-9213. Many states find the same prohibition in corresponding constitutional and statutory provisions. 1 Federal agencies are subject to a similar prohibition. 1 2010 N.M. Att'y Gen. Inf. Op., 2010 WL 311646 (N.M.A.G.) (opining that indemnification obligations that require use of general revenues "can run afoul of the 'debt' provisions" of the constitution); 2006 Miss. Att'y Gen. Op. 610, 2006 WL 1900660 (Miss.AG.); 2006 Okla. Att'y Gen. Op. 11, 2006 WL 1987826 (reviewing cases holding that a hold harmless provisions assuming the contingent liability of another is in violation of law); 2005 Alaska Att'y Gen. Inf. Op., 2005 WL 2098268 (Alaska A.G.); 1996 Ohio Att'y Gen. Op. 060, 1996 WL 708356; 1995 Fla. Att'y Gen. Op. 12, 1995 WL 66343 (opining that a state agency may not waive the defense of sovereign immunity or increase its liability through an indemnification clause); 1989 S.C. Att'y Gen. Op. 116, 1989 WL 406133 (extending prior opinions that agencies do not have authority to enter indemnification agreements to contracts with other government entities, including federal entities); 1989 Wis. Att'y Gen. Op. 1-89; 71 Md. Att'y Gen. Op. 274, 1986 WL 287651 (opining that indemnification is "flatly inconsistent with the public policy" in the constitutional and statutory limits on expenditure in excess

Ed Schriever
Page - 4

Indemnification Agreements & the Anti-Deficiency Act, 8 Op. O.L.C. 94, 1984 WL 178357 (1984) (discussing application of the anti-deficiency act to indemnification agreements); see also The Anti-Deficiency Act Implications of Consent by Gov't Employees to Online Terms of Serv. Agreements Containing Open-Ended Indemnification Clauses, 2012 WL 5885535 (O.L.C. Mar. 27, 2012) (reviewing the anti-deficiency act and indemnification agreements in online terms of service). In correspondence to the Idaho Office of the Attorney General, the USDA provided excerpts from Forest Service guidance concerning "standard, nationally approved modified liability clauses for states." These standard terms provide an unqualified indemnification of the United States "subject to" the limits on the state party's liability in the state's tort claims act. Indemnification is an obligation assumed under a contract. The Idaho Tort Claims Act waives the state's sovereign immunity for claims arising in tort up to a statutory limit. The Act does not waive immunity related to or address claims arising in contract such as an indemnification agreement. As discussed above, an indemnification obligation in a state agency contract not funded by legislative appropriation is void and state agencies do not Conditioning a contractual have authority to accept such an obligation. indemnification obligation on the Idaho Tort Claims Act does not avoid the Idaho constitutional and statutory limits on the contractual obligation. See 1999 Miss. Att'y Gen. Op. 241, 1999 WL 535496 (Miss.AG.) ("[T]he addition of the phrase 'to the extent permitted by Mississippi law' to the limitation of liability and to the indemnification and hold harmless language ... , in our opinion, has no legal effect."). B.

The Liability Terms Requested by the USDA Are Private Insurance Terms Not Authorized Under the State of Idaho's Self-Insurance Program

The USDA has also requested that the Department of Fish and Game procure commercial general liability (CGL) insurance with a limit of one million dollars per incident and two million dollars in the aggregate naming the United of appropriation); 1982 Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. U82-008; 1982 Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. MW-475, 1982 WL 173817; 2013 Wa. Att'y Gen. Op. 2, 2013 WL 4517409 (opining that in the absence of a specific grant of authority by the legislature, public entity lacks the power to indemnify); 2006 La. Att'y Gen. Op. 250, 2006 WL 3616638 (opining that Louisiana statute prohibits indemnification clauses except as between Louisiana government entities); 2008 Or. Att'y Gen. Op. 1, 2008 WL 1991485 (opining that indemnification obligations create contingent liabilities that must be funded under the Oregon Constitution); 1985-86 Va. Att'y Gen. Op. 36, 1986 WL 221191 (opining that indemnification agreements limited to the funds provided by the legislature also require case-by-case analysis to determine if they violate the Virginia Constitution's prohibitions on lending the credit of the state); 1980 Ga. Att'y Gen. Op. 141, 1980 WL 26351 (opining that indemnification agreement violates constitutional prohibitions on the lending of the state's credit and the sovereign immunity of the state).

Ed Schriever
Page - 5

States as an additional insured. Alternatively, the USDA has offered that it will accept a self-insurance program if the State of Idaho names the United States as an "additional insured" and provides "coverage" to the dollar limit provided by the requested private insurance. Idaho law has not established a self-insurance program with authority to grant "additional insured" status or to provide specific dollar limit coverage as is provided under private insurance policies. Idaho law provides for a comprehensive liability plan known within Idaho State government as the "retained risk program." The retained risk program is to be provided by the Administrator of the Department of Administration's Division of Insurance Management (Risk). Idaho Code § 6919. The retained risk program is not a policy of insurance under Idaho law because it is not a contract between the State of Idaho and any other party. See Idaho Code§§ 41-102 (definition of insurance) and 41-103 (definition of insurer). The retained risk program is funded by the continuously appropriated retained risk account. Idaho Code§ 67-5776. Idaho law provides that the retained risk account shall be used solely for the purposes set forth in Idaho Code section 67-5776, which include the costs of private insurance, the costs of maintaining the Risk office, and payment of losses "suffered by the state as to property and risks which at the time of the loss were eligible for such payment under guidelines theretofore issued by the director of the department of administration." Unlike an additional insured on a private insurance policy, a third party cannot make a claim against the retained risk account. Except as provided in the Idaho Tort Claims Act, there is no monetary limit to payment of losses within the retained risk program in Idaho law and nothing akin to the per occurrence or aggregate coverage of a private insurance policy. If the USDA's terms are not adjusted to account for the nature of the retained risk program, the IDFG may request that the Director of the Department of Administration consider the purchase of private insurance policies providing the requested coverage. The Idaho Legislature has required the Director of the Department of Administration to determine the nature and extent of agency needs for private insurance coverages. Idaho Code§ 67-5773. In addition, only the Risk Administrator is authorized to procure private liability insurance on behalf of the state. Idaho Code § 6-920. Absent the consent of the Director and the purchase by Risk, the IDFG is not authorized to provide a private policy of insurance for the benefit of the United States. Even if the Director of the Department of Administration determines a private insurance policy is appropriate and the Risk Administrator is able to procure a policy, the inclusion of a third party as an additional insured on the policy could raise legal concerns. At least two state attorneys general have concluded that

Ed Schriever
Page - 6

doing so is equivalent to an agreement to indemnify a third party. 2007 Okla. Att'y Gen. Op. 41, 2007 WL 4699715; 2000 Fla. Att'y Gen. Op. 22, 2000 WL 347547 (opining that county was not authorized to "purchase insurance for the benefit of the other party to a contract, effectively providing for the indemnification of the other party."). C.

Template Idaho Terms

Following the USDA's contact with IDFG, legal counsel for USDA contacted the Idaho Office of the Attorney General and requested that this Office provide a "template for the liability language in Idaho's permits." The information submitted with the request indicates that the permits at issue involve counties, cities, higher education institutions, school districts, and highway districts. The Idaho Office of the Attorney General does not represent these entities or negotiate contracts on their behalf. Below I provide sample language the Idaho Office of the Attorney General has previously recommended for use by State of Idaho agencies in agreements with agencies of the United States. Allocation of Risk. Federal Entity and Idaho Agency shall be responsible only for the acts, omissions or negligence of such party's own employees and agents. Nothing in this Agreement shall extend the tort responsibility or liability of the State of Idaho or the United States beyond that required by law, including for the State of Idaho the Idaho Tort Claims Act, Idaho Code section 6-901, et seq. Each party shall be responsible for damage to property of the other party caused by its employees and agents in the performance of the Agreement. If a property claim or damage is not covered by the party's self-insurance or other property coverage, the responsible party shall pay the costs arising from such claim or damage to the extent funds are legally available therefor. If a claim or damage arises from more than one party's performance of the Agreement or is not allocable to any party, each party shall pay the costs to such party arising from the claim or damage. Insurance. Insurance requirements in the Agreement may be evidenced by a Certificate of Financial Responsibility or other evidence of a self-insurance or a pooled or cooperative liability program for the State of Idaho or Federal Entities. If any coverage required by the Agreement is provided by private insurers or quasigovernmental entities regulated under applicable insurance codes or

Ed Schriever
Page - 7

laws, the insured party shall provide coverage and evidence of coverage as set forth in the Agreement. Idaho higher education institutions and political subdivisions are governed by provisions in the Idaho Constitution, Idaho statutes, ordinances of the political subdivision, and policies of the higher education institution's regents or governing board imposing similar restrictions as those applicable to State of Idaho agencies. Political subdivisions and their legal counsel may find that the above terms require limited modification to meet the entity's requirements.

CONCLUSION
The Idaho Constitution establishes the appropriation process to ensure both the Idaho legislative and executive branches approve the expenditure of public funds. A contractual indemnity not funded through the appropriation process is contrary to Idaho law and State of Idaho agencies do not have the authority to agree to an unfunded contractual indemnification term. The State of Idaho retained risk program is not a policy of insurance regulated under the Idaho insurance code. The retained risk program cannot insure third parties, including the USDA. In addition, the only limits on the amount of a payment under the retained risk program in Idaho law are the Idaho Tort Claims Act and the statutory and constitutional limits on expenditures exceeding an appropriation.

AUTHORITIES CONSIDERED

1.

Idaho Constitution

Art. VII, § 13
Art. VIII, § 1

2.

Idaho Code

§ 6-901, et seq.
§ 6-903
§ 6-919
§ 6-920
§ 6-922
§ 14-520
§ 14-523
§ 41-102
§ 41-103

Ed Schriever
Page - 8

§ 59-1015
§ 59-1016
§59-1017
§ 67-5773
§ 67-5776
§ 67-9213

3.

Idaho Administrative Code

IDAPA 38.05.01 .112.02.a.

4.

Other Authorities

Agreements & the Anti-Deficiency Act, 8 Op. O.L.C. 94, 1984 WL 178357 (1984) The Anti-Deficiency Act Implications of Consent by Gov't Employees to Online Terms of Serv. Agreements Containing Open-Ended Indemnification Clauses, 2012 WL 5885535 (O.L.C. Mar. 27, 2012) 1979 Idaho Att'y Gen. Ann. Rpt. 77 1982 Idaho Att'y Gen. Ann. Rpt. 117 1980 Ga. Att'y Gen. Op. 141, 1980 WL 26351 1982 Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. U82-008 1982 Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. MW-475, 1982 WL 173817 71 Md. Att'y Gen. Op. 274, 1986 WL 287651 1985-86 Va. Att'y Gen. Op. 36, 1986 WL 221191 1989 S.C. Att'y Gen. Op. 116, 1989 WL 406133 1989 Wis. Att'y Gen. Op. 1-89 1995 Fla. Att'y Gen. Op. 12, 1995 WL 66343 1996 Ohio Att'y Gen. Op. 060, 1996 WL 708356 1999 Miss. Att'y Gen. Op. 241, 1999 WL 535496 (Miss.AG.) 2000 Fla. Att'y Gen. Op. 22, 2000 WL 347547 2005 Alaska Att'y Gen. Inf. Op., 2005 WL 2098268 (Alaska A.G.) 2006 La. Att'y Gen. Op. 250, 2006 WL 3616638 2006 Miss. Att'y Gen. Op. 610, 2006 WL 1900660 (Miss.AG.) 2006 Okla. Att'y Gen. Op. 11, 2006 WL 1987826 2007 Okla. Att'y Gen. Op. 41, 2007 WL 4699715 2008 Or. Att'y Gen. Op. 1, 2008 WL 1991485 2010 N.M. Att'y Gen. Inf. Op., 2010 WL 311646 (N.M.A.G.) 2013 Wa. Att'y Gen. Op. 2, 2013 WL 4517409

Ed Schriever
Page - 9

Dated this 30 th day of September, 2019

LAWRENCE G. WASDEN
Attorney General
Analysis by:

JULIE K. WEAVER
Deputy Attorney General