WPC5 2~ ZBVXXN\  PXPa1DocumentDocument StyleF *  ׃  a2DocumentDocument Style*    a3DocumentDocument Style0     2Zpe epa4DocumentDocument Style . a5DocumentDocument Style   a6DocumentDocument Style   a7DocumentDocument Style ` ` ` 2p   Ha8DocumentDocument Style` ` ` a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style 4!     a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style *    a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style '    2/  'a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style &    a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style &  . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . 2 a  w  a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&   . a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8!"@   a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA#$@` `  ` ` ` a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ%&@  ` `  2  K  a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS'(@  a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\)*@hh# hhh a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numberse+,@( hh# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn-.@- ( 2T>a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw/0@pp2 -ppp     X0Í Í X0Í Í Roman 12ptRoman Courier 12pt'12#d6X@@#Op. DraftOpinion -- Draft34  (c#j\  P6;XPH#   3 1, 4 @&D R A F T` APage  _______________________________________________________ 2njItalic 12ptItalics Courier 12pt type'56'#x6NhH##x6NhH#BibliogrphyBibliography78 Doc InitInitialize Document Style9:    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲTech InitInitialize Technical Style;< 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2H 3!"_PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper=>   ,#j\  P6;XPH# X  y*dddyy*dddy H\1 H\2 H\3 H\4 H\5 H\6 H\7 H\8 H\9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Home PtrSets codes for printing opinions on Sperry Laser Q?@ X #Xx6X@X@#  EnvelopeEnvelope!AB '3 II    Xp,  p,p, Letter 2Personal stationery with standard margins"bCD#XN\  PXP#   p,  3 1, 4 2#K$%p&pLetter 3Personal stationery with narrow margins#bEF#&R2P &P#     3 1, 4 Letter 1Court stationery$PGH#XZ2P XP# * 3 1, 4 ؃ Single Space% I J1Document Style&KL` ` ` 2!'q(e0 )e * 2Document Style'M N . 3Document Style( OP 4Document Style) QR 5Document Style**ST   2#+p!,/"-".\#6Document Style+UV` ` ` 7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers,8WX@   8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers-AYZ@` `  ` ` ` 9Document Style.0[ \    2&/#$0$1t%2*&10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers/J]^@  ` `  11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers0S_`@  12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers1\ab@hh# hhh 13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers2ecd@( hh# 2)3'4'5(6n)14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers3nef@- ( 15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers4wgh@pp2 -ppp 16Document Style5Fij *  ׃  17Technical Document Style6&kl  . 2o,7%*8*9F+:+18Technical Document Style7&mn  . 19Technical Document Style8*op    20Technical Document Style9'qr   21Technical Document Style:&st   25;,<Q-=-0[[.22Technical Document Style;4u$v     23Technical Document Style<&wx  . 24Technical Document Style=&yz  . īXN\  PXPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularXA\  PPx9 Z6Times New Roman Regulard6X@@<6X9`("Courier NewTTj\  P6;XPH%\  `$Times New RomanXx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTj\  P6;XPH%\  `$Times New RomanXXx6X@X@<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXN\  PXP% [  `*Times New RomanTTX&R2P &P7|A`$ArialTT&XZ2P XP& A`ArialTTX2553|x  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ă & &No. 961013ă & Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Robert G. Garrett, Petitioners  *v.ă Garrison Contractors, Inc., Respondent   On Application for Writ of Error to the ! Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texasă  l Argued on October 7, 1997 ă 44Justice Baker, joined by Justice Gonzalez, concurring in part and dissenting in part.  I agree with the Courts judgment except where the Court holds that an insurance company employee, acting within the course and scope of employment, can be individually liable under the Insurance Code. Therefore, I dissent in part.  I. BACKGROUND After Garrison refused to pay a retrospective premium, Liberty sued to collect the premium. Garrison counterclaimed against Liberty and filed a thirdparty claim against Libertys employee, Garrett. The court of appeals reversed a summary judgment for Liberty and Garrett. The court of appeals held, in part, that material fact issues remained about alleged policy misrepresentations, and that Garrison had a private cause of action against Garrett individually under the Insurance Code. We granted application for writ of error to decide whether an insurance company employee can be individually liable under the Insurance Code for acts in the course and scope of employment. II. INSURANCE CODE CLAIMS AGAINST INSURANCE COMPANY EMPLOYEES As the Court holds, we determine the Legislatures intent by the plain and common meaning of the statutes words. See Monsanto Co. v. Cornerstones Mun. Util. Dist., 865 S.W.2d 937, 939 (Tex. 1993). When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we enforce that clear meaning.  See Monsanto, 865 S.W.2d at 939. We must also give full effect to all a statutes terms in context. See Bridgstone/Firestone, Inc. v. GlynJones, 878 S.W.2d 132, 133 (Tex. 1994); RepublicBank Dallas, N.A. v. Interkal, Inc., 691 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Tex. 1985). Here, the statute does not envision individual liability against insurance company employees.#A\  PP#э The Court gives considerable deference to the Department of Insurances views as amicus curiae. Importantly, the Insurance Codes regulatory powers are broad and extend to all agents of [insurance] companies, regardless of whether they are a natural or artificial person[] engaged in the business of insurance. See Tex. Ins. Code art. 1.10(7)(g). These broad regulatory powers are unlike article 21.21 which gives parties like Garrison a more limited private right of action. Consequently, the Departments regulatory powers are not affected by our interpretation of article 21.21, section 16(a)s scope. Article 21.21 allows a person harmed by unfair competition methods or unfair or deceptive acts or practices to sue the person or persons engaging in such acts or practices. See Tex. Ins. Code art. 21.21,  16(a). Article 21.21, section 2(a) lists potential defendants by defining person as: [a]ny individual, corporation, association, partnership, reciprocal exchange, interinsurer, Lloyds insurer, fraternal benefit society, and any other legal entity engaged in the business of insurance, including agents, brokers, adjusters and life insurance counselors. Tex. Ins. Code art. 21.21,  2(a)(emphasis added).Thus, for a person to have Insurance Code liability, the person must be a legal entity engaged in the business of insurance. See Tex. Ins. Code art. 21.21,  2(a). Not just any  person fits the definition. Instead, only a person that acts as a legal entity in the insurance business can be held liable. Because article 21.21, section 2(a) limits liability to legal entit[ies] engaged in the business of insurance, it does not provide a cause of action against insurance company employees. See French v. State Farm Ins. Co., 156 F.R.D. 159, 163 (S.D. Tex. 1994); Ayoub v. Baggett, 820 F. Supp. 298, 299 (S.D. Tex. 1993); Arzehgar v. Dixon, 150 F.R.D. 92, 9495 (S.D. Tex. 1993). The Insurance Codes focus and its reach go to the business entities that provide insurance, not the employees of those providers. Ayoub, 820 F. Supp. at 299 (citing Tex. Ins. Code Ann. art. 21.21,  1(a))(emphasis added). To hold otherwise would be to conclude that Texas intended to put every individual employee of an insurance provider at risk of liability for trade practices of the employer. Ayoub, 820 F. Supp. at 299. Nothing in the statute suggests that private claims against individual employees are part of the Texas scheme. Ayoub, 820 F. Supp. at 299. Moreover, the term legal entity simply does not contemplate insurance company employees the way that it does insurance companies, independent agents, insurance brokers, independent adjusters, or independent life insurance counselors. See Tex. Ins. Code art. 21.07,  6(a)(providing for licensing of agents in general, who may represent multiple insurers); Employers Cas. Co. v. Mireles, 520 S.W.2d 516, 520 (Tex. Civ. App.San Antonio 1975, writ refd. n.r.e.)(noting distinction between independent agents and insurance company employee agents); Tex. Ins. Code art. 21.077,  2(2)(providing for licensing of brokers and defining broker as a person, other than an officer or employee of an insurer, who solicits, negotiates, or places reinsurance business on behalf of an insurer . . . .)(emphasis added); Tex. Ins. Code art. 21.074,  1(a)(providing for licensing and regulation of insurance adjusters who may be an independent contractor or an employee); Tex. Ins. Code art. 21.072,  3 (providing for licensing and regulation of independent life insurance counselors and expressly excluding insurance company employees from statutes scope) . Where the Legislature intended to impose personal liability under the Insurance Code, it has done so expressly. Article 21.02 provides: Any person who solicits insurance on behalf on any insurance company. . . without such company having first complied with the requirements of the laws of this State, shall be personally liable to the holder of any policy of insurance in respect of which such act was done for any loss covered by the same.  Tex. Ins. Code art. 21.02 (emphasis added); see also Tex. Ins. Code art. 21.021 (imposing fines against individuals if violations occur while working for an unauthorized company) and art. 21.071,  2(b)(imposing personal liability for insureds losses if policy is from an unauthorized company). Therefore, absent evidence that an insurance company employee acted for a noncomplying company, there can be no individual liability against an insurance company employee acting in the course and scope of employment. See generally Tex. Ins. Code art. 1.141 (concerning general compliance laws for insurers in Texas and Legislatures concern about unauthorized insurance companies); see also Tex. Ins. Code art. 21.21,  2(a); Holloway v. Skinner, 898 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex. 1995)(regarding general rule about an employees individual liability). Of course, an insurer may be liable for its employees misrepresentations. See Celtic Life Ins. Co. v. Coats, 885 S.W.2d 96, 98 (Tex. 1994); Natividad v. Alexis, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 695, 700 (Tex. 1994); Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Bar Consultants, Inc., 577 S.W.2d 688, 693 (Tex. 1979). A suit against an insurer alleging that the insurers employee, acting in the scope of employment, committed wrongful acts under the Insurance Code, accomplishes the same goal as suing the employee: The insurer is the party responsible for damages caused by its employees acts within the scope of their employment. See Celtic Life, 885 S.W.2d at 98; Natividad, 875 S.W.2d at 700; see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 876 S.W.2d 145, 149 (Tex. 1994)( The obligations imposed by art. 21.21 of the Insurance Code and Vail are engrafted onto the contract between the insurer and insured . . . .). Here, Garrisons insurance contract is with Liberty, not with Libertys employee, Garrett. It is the contract that vests the insurer with exclusive control over its relationship with the insured. See Natividad, 875 S.W.2d at 696. As with its common law duties to the insured, the disputed statutory duties here begin and end with Liberty the buck stops with them. Natividad, 875 S.W.2d at 698 n.7. I would reverse the court of appeals and affirm the trial courts summary judgment for Garrett against Garrisons Insurance Code claim. III. CONCLUSION 44I would hold that a statutory cause of action under the Insurance Code does not exist against an insurance company employee for his or her acts in the course and scope of employment. Because the Court holds otherwise, I respectfully dissent.  ` ` ` hhh_______________________` ` ` hhhJames A. Baker, ` ` ` hhhJustice OPINION DELIVERED: April 14, 1998