Does a Texas homeowner lose the home-security insurance discount if an exterior door has glass panels, and which agency decides these rules?

Texas AG Opinion JM-1103: Home-Security Insurance Discount and Glass-Panel Doors

Plain-English summary

Texas has a law (Insurance Code article 5.33A) that gives homeowners a break on their insurance premiums if their house meets certain security standards, mainly the right kinds of solid doors, dead-bolt locks, and window locks that make forced entry harder. The program is a bit of a two-agency arrangement: a homeowner applies to the city or county, which sends an inspector to check the property, and the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education sets standards for and certifies those inspectors, while the State Board of Insurance sets the premium-reduction amounts. The executive director of the commission asked the Attorney General two questions.

The first was a turf question: which agency has "primary responsibility" for interpreting article 5.33A, the insurance board or the commission? The Attorney General gave it to the State Board of Insurance. The board's general statutory duty is to see that all insurance laws are faithfully executed, which necessarily means figuring out what those laws require. It made more sense for the agency whose whole focus is insurance to interpret an insurance-premium statute. On top of that, a 1985 amendment empowered the board to set alternative security specifications at least as effective as the ones listed in the statute, and to set the premium-reduction amounts by rule. It would have been odd for the Legislature to give the board that power while assigning the job of interpreting the same specifications to a different agency. The commission's role, by contrast, was the narrower one of making sure inspectors are qualified to apply the board's interpretations and setting inspection procedures.

The second question was the practical one homeowners actually care about: can an exterior door have glass panels and still qualify for the discount? The Attorney General said yes, assuming the rest of the property meets the specifications. The statute itself contemplates glass in exterior doors. Sliding glass doors can qualify if they have the required secondary locks, and another subsection spells out extra lock requirements for a door that has breakable glass within 40 inches of the lock, which only makes sense if a qualifying door can have glass. The State Board of Insurance had already taken the position that glass in an exterior door does not disqualify a homeowner, and because the board has practical knowledge of how effective various security measures are, the Attorney General deferred to that administrative reading rather than second-guessing it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989. 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.

Texas insurance regulation was reorganized after 1989; the State Board of Insurance was later replaced by the Texas Department of Insurance, and the article 5.33A premium-reduction and security-specification provisions may have been amended or recodified. Anyone seeking this kind of home-security discount today should check the current Insurance Code and Department of Insurance rules, and confirm with their insurer, rather than relying on the 1989 framing here.

Who this opinion affected (as of 1989)

Homeowners seeking the discount: The opinion reassured them that having glass panels in an exterior door did not, by itself, cost them the premium reduction, so long as the home met the other security specifications.

The State Board of Insurance: The opinion confirmed the board, not the police-standards commission, was the agency whose interpretation of article 5.33A controlled, consistent with its duty to see insurance laws faithfully executed and its power to set alternative specifications and premium amounts.

The Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education: The opinion clarified the commission's role was limited to certifying qualified inspectors and setting inspection procedures, not interpreting the substantive requirements of the article.

Common questions

Does a glass panel in an exterior door disqualify my home from the discount?
No. The Attorney General concluded an exterior door may have glass panels and still qualify under section 6 of article 5.33A, provided the property meets the other security specifications.

Which agency decides what article 5.33A means?
The State Board of Insurance. The opinion gave it primary responsibility for interpreting the article, based on its duty to see insurance laws faithfully executed and its authority to set alternative specifications and premium-reduction amounts.

What does the police-standards commission actually do here?
It sets standards for the inspection program, adopts inspection procedure rules, and certifies the inspectors (who must be licensed peace officers or designated building inspectors with the required training). It does not interpret the substantive security requirements.

Why did the Attorney General defer to the insurance board on the glass question?
Because the board had already concluded glass in an exterior door does not disqualify a homeowner, and it has practical knowledge of how effective various security measures are. Courts ordinarily defer to an agency's reasonable construction of a statute it administers.

Background and statutory framework

Article 5.33A of the Insurance Code provides for reductions in homeowners' insurance premiums for property that meets minimum security specifications. Section 6 lists those specifications, covering exterior doors (solid core, 1 3/8 inches thick, dead-bolt locks), metal doors, double doors, sliding glass doors, dutch doors, garage doors, and windows, along with dead-bolt and auxiliary-locking-device requirements. Section 3 directs the applicant to apply to the city or county, which assigns an inspector. Section 5 has the board establish by rule the amount of the premium reduction. Section 7 gives the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education the duty to establish standards for the inspection program, adopt rules to carry it out, and certify inspectors. Section 8 sets certification requirements: inspectors must be licensed peace officers or building inspectors or other officials designated by the city or county, with classroom instruction from the commission.

On the interpretive-authority question, the Attorney General relied on Insurance Code article 1.10(1), which directs the board to see that all laws respecting insurance are faithfully executed, a duty that necessarily includes determining what those laws provide. He reasoned that the Legislature would have expected interpretation of article 5.33A to be handled by the board, given its primary concern with insurance, and pointed to the 1985 amendment adding section 6(e), which empowered the board to set alternative specifications at least as effective as those in section 6. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 744, § 1. It would be anomalous to give the board that power yet place primary interpretive responsibility on another agency. See also Ins. Code art. 5.33A, § 5. The opinion noted, in a footnote, that under the Texas Constitution the ultimate responsibility for interpreting laws rests, with limited exceptions, on the courts. Tex. Const. art. V, § 1.

On the glass-panel question, the Attorney General read section 6 as a whole. Because sliding glass exterior doors can qualify under section 6(a)(4) if they meet the other requirements, and because section 6(b) sets extra lock requirements where a door has breakable glass within 40 inches of the lock, the statute contemplates that a qualifying exterior door may have glass. He also deferred to the State Board of Insurance's own position that glass in an exterior door does not disqualify a homeowner, consistent with the principle that courts ordinarily defer to an administrative agency's construction of a statute it administers. See, e.g., Letter Opinion 88-78 (1988). The legislative history reinforced the point that the article's purpose is to encourage security equipment that reduces the risk of forced entry. See Bill Analysis, H.B. 764, 67th Leg. (1981) (adding the article); Bill Analysis, H.B. 1861, 69th Leg. (1985) (amending the article).

Citations

Statutory and constitutional authorities:

• Insurance Code art. 5.33A (homeowners-insurance premium reductions; § 3 application and inspection; § 5 premium-reduction amount; § 6 security specifications, including § 6(e) alternative specifications; § 7 commission duties; § 8 inspector certification)
• Insurance Code art. 1.10(1) (board's duty to see that all insurance laws are faithfully executed)
• Texas Constitution art. V, § 1 (courts' ultimate responsibility to interpret laws)

Attorney General letter opinion referenced:

• Letter Opinion 88-78 (1988)

Legislative history:

• Bill Analysis, H.B. 764, 67th Leg. (1981); Bill Analysis, H.B. 1861, 69th Leg. (1985)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-1103
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1989/jm1103.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor OCR errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

September 26, 1989

Mr. Fred Toler
Executive Director
Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education
1606 Headway Circle, Suite 100
Austin, Texas 78754

Opinion No. JM-1103

Re: Which state agency is responsible for interpreting the provisions of Insurance Code article 5.33A regarding homeowners premium reductions and related questions (RQ-1758)

Dear Mr. Toler:

You ask two questions about article 5.33A of the Insurance Code.

Article 5.33A provides for reductions in homeowners' insurance premiums. Section 6 of the article provides minimum specifications that the homeowner's property must meet to qualify for the premium reduction. The specifications relate to the types of doors, windows and locks contemplated to increase the security of the property. Section 3 provides that the person seeking the premium reduction shall apply to the city or county where the property is located and that the city or county shall assign an inspector to inspect the property to determine whether it meets the requisite specifications for the premium reduction. Section 7 provides that the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education shall establish standards for the inspection program and certify inspectors. Section 8 provides the requirements for certification as an inspector.

You ask which state agency, the State Board of Insurance (the board) or the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education (the commission), has "primary responsibility" for "interpreting" the provisions of Insurance Code article 5.33A.

Insurance Code article 1.10(1) provides that the board shall "[s]ee that all laws respecting insurance and insurance companies are faithfully executed." Clearly, in order to "see that all laws respecting insurance . . . are faithfully executed" under article 1.10(1), the board would have to determine what those laws provided for.[1]

[1] Of course, under our constitution, the ultimate responsibility for interpreting laws falls, with certain limited exceptions, on the courts. See generally Tex. Const. art. V, § 1, and authorities cited therein.

Also, we think that the legislature would have contemplated that interpretation of the provisions in question in article 5.33A would be more effectively accomplished by the board than by the commission, given the board's primary concern with insurance matters. Notably, in this respect, a 1985 amendment to article 5.33A, section 6(e), empowered the board to "set standards for alternative specifications to protect a person's property that are at least as effective as those listed in" section 6. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 744, § 1, at 2568. It would be anomalous, we think, for the legislature to authorize the board to set alternative specifications to those set out in section 6 if it intended that the "primary responsibility" for determining the import of the provisions of section 6 should fall on another agency. See also Ins. Code art. 5.33A, § 5 (board to establish by rule the amount by which premiums may be reduced under the article).

Section 7 of article 5.33A provides for the duties of the commission under the article as follows:

The commission shall establish standards for the inspection program under this article, shall adopt rules to carry out the inspection program, and shall certify inspectors who do the inspections, except such certificate shall be limited to the specification set forth in Section 6 hereof for which the inspector has received instruction under Section (8)(b)(3) hereof.

We think that the legislature intended in section 7 that the commission's role in implementing article 5.33A be limited to setting standards for the inspection of doors rather than their composition. Inspectors are assigned to inspect the properties of applicants for premium reductions by the city or town where the property is located. Id. § 3. Inspectors must be certified by the commission and in order to receive certification must be peace officers licensed by the commission or building inspectors or other officials designated by the city or county where they will serve. They must also have received classroom instruction from the commission or an agent of the commission. Id. § 8. We think that the article's provisions empower the commission to assure that inspectors are qualified to make factual determinations in accordance with the board's interpretations of the article's requirements and to set rules governing the procedures for inspection. We do not think that the commission's duties under the above-mentioned provisions can be said to include the "primary responsibility" for "interpreting" the provisions of article 5.33A, in light of the general provision in article 1.10(1) that the board shall "[s]ee that all laws respecting insurance . . . are faithfully executed."

You also ask whether an exterior door may have glass panels and still qualify under the requirements of article 5.33A for the reduction in homeowners' insurance premiums provided for in the article. Article 5.33A provides in section 6:

(a) A person's property qualifies for a homeowners insurance premium reduction if the property meets the following minimum specifications:

(1) exterior doors must be solid core doors that are 1 3/8 inches thick and must be secured by dead-bolt locks;

(2) metal doors must be secured by dead-bolt locks;

(3) double doors must meet the specifications provided by Subdivision (1) of this subsection, must have the inactive door secured by header and threshold bolts that penetrate metal strike plates, and in the case of glass located within 40 inches of header and threshold bolts, must have the bolts flush-mounted in the edge of the door;

(4) sliding glass doors must be secured by secondary locking devices to prevent lifting and prying;

(5) dutch doors must have concealed flush-bolt locking devices to interlock upper and lower halves and must be secured by a dead-bolt lock;

(6) garage doors must be equipped with key-operated locking devices; and

(7) windows must be secured by auxiliary locking devices.

(b) A dead-bolt lock required by Subsection (a) of this section must lock with a minimum bolt throw of one inch that penetrates a metal strike plate. If a door secured by a dead-bolt lock has breakable glass within 40 inches of the lock, the lock must be key-operated from both sides unless prohibited by life safety codes.

(c) An auxiliary locking device required by Subsection (a) of this section must include screws, wooden dowel pinning devices, and key-operated locks. In areas in which life safety codes permit, metal bars or grating, if mounted to prevent easy removal, may be substituted for auxiliary locking devices.

(d) Jalousie or louvered windows do not meet the specifications of this section unless they have metal grating mounted as provided by Subsection (c) of this section.

(e) The Board may adopt rules that set standards for alternative specifications to protect a person's property that are at least as effective as those listed in this section. Such alternative specifications shall entitle a person's property meeting such specifications to a similar homeowners premium reduction under this article.

Id. § 6.

The construction of section 6 of article 5.33A presents difficulties. For example, subsection (a)(1) provides that "exterior doors must be solid core doors" of a certain thickness and "secured by dead-bolt locks." Subsections (a)(2) through (a)(6) provide requirements for "metal," "double," "sliding glass," "dutch," and "garage" doors without indicating whether such requirements apply only where the doors in question are exterior doors.

Upon reviewing the provisions in their entirety, we would be inclined to conclude that the requirements of subsections (a)(2) through (a)(6) for "metal," "double," "sliding glass," "dutch," and "garage" doors apply only where such doors are exterior doors. The requirements for each of such types of door include provisions for locking devices. As a practical matter, we do not think the legislature would have intended such requirements to apply to other than exterior doors. Clearly, the overall purpose of article 5.33A is to allow homeowners' insurance premium discounts to a homeowner for the installation of security equipment that would reduce the risk of forced entry into the house. See Bill Analysis, H.B. 764, 67th Leg. (1981) (adding the article); Bill Analysis, H.B. 1861, 69th Leg. (1985) (amending the article).

Since sliding glass exterior doors might qualify for premium reductions under article 5.33A, section 6(a)(4), if they meet the other requirements of that section, it would seem unlikely that the legislature intended that an exterior door would not qualify if it had glass panels. We also note that the provisions of subsection (b), requiring particular locking devices where "a door secured by a dead-bolt lock has breakable glass within 40 inches of the lock," id. § 6(b), suggest that an exterior door may have glass panels and still meet the premium reduction requirements.

Also, you inform us that the State Board of Insurance has taken the position that glass in an exterior door does not disqualify a homeowner from receiving an insurance premium reduction. Because the board has factual knowledge of the effectiveness of various security measures in reducing the risks to be insured against, we would be hesitant to challenge their administrative determination. Under such circumstances courts ordinarily defer to the construction of a statute's term by the appropriate administrative agency. See, e.g., Letter Opinion 88-78 (1988) (construction of provisions of article 179d, V.T.C.S. that "fraternal organizations" as defined in that article are eligible for licensure by the comptroller to conduct bingo games).

SUMMARY

Of the two agencies, the State Board of Insurance and the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education, the State Board of Insurance has the "primary responsibility" for "interpreting" the provisions of article 5.33A of the Insurance Code relating to reductions in homeowners' insurance premiums on property meeting certain security specifications. An exterior door may have glass panels and still qualify under the provisions of section 6 of article 5.33A if the property meets the other specifications provided for in that section.

Very truly yours,

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

MARY KELLER
First Assistant Attorney General

LOU MCCREARY
Executive Assistant Attorney General

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by William Walker
Assistant Attorney General