Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-157

Opinion No. 157 SchooIs-SchooI Tl'Ustees-InsUl'ance- Agents-Public Policy, HElLD: It is against public poliey for a member of a school boa I'd to act as agent for an insurance eompan~' in securing school insurance. April 13, 1!)33. You request my opinion as to wheth- er or not It memher of a school hoa I'd ('an act as agent for an in~uranee com- pany in sec'uring sehool insnrance. and call attention to Sections 444. 447. 1016 and 1327 It. C. 1\1. In:!l. The pro\'isions of none of these sections cover the question and such action would not be a violation of any of said statutes. The rule, however, is stated in 6. R C. L. 740, Section 145: "According to the weh;ht of authority, a eontract by a board or puhlic body with a member thereof or in which a member thereof is interested is unenforceable eyen in the absence of a statutory prohibition. although from some of the dec-isions it is not clear whether such contracts are to be regarded as void or voidable. The reason is that in such case the mem- her's public duty and his private in- terests are directl.\' antagonistic. It matters not if he did in fact make his private interests subsen'ient to his pub- lic duties. It is the relation that the law condemns, not the results. It might be that in a particular case puh, lic duty triumphed in the struggle with private interests; hut such might not be the case against or with another of- ficer, and the la w will not increase the temlitation or multiply opportunities for malfeasance. Neither will it take the trouble to detel'mine whether in any case the result show a wrong or crime, but it absolutely and unequiv- OPIXIOXS OF THE ATTOR~EY GENERAL 115 ocally refuses its sanction to any con· tract of any kind whatever where such relation exists." Therefore, contracts of the character you mention should not be permitted. Such contracts might very easily in· ,ol,e the school rlistricts, insurance companies and the agent in very seri- ous litigation.