*1 BELTH, JOSEPH M. as an individual and as Editor In Forum, Respondent, surance v. Plaintiff/Petitioner BENNETT, ANDREA State Auditor and Commissioner Defendant/Respondent Montana, Insurance the State Ap pellant. No. 86-429. Submitted Feb. 1987. July 2, Decided 1987. Rehearing Aug. Denied 1987.
Jonathan Motl for respondent. Revenue, Tricht, Affairs, Dept, of E. Legal
Paul Van Charles Com’rs, Helena, Erdmann, Gilfil- Sandra L. Nat. Ass’n of Ins. lan, Mo., City, Kansas for amicus curiae. Opinion
MR. JUSTICE GULBRANDSON delivered the Court. Bennett,
Andrea Insurance State Auditor and Commissioner of Montana, County appeals the State of a Lewis and Clark District provide directing respondent Joseph Court order her Belth with analyses appellant’s possession access to data which relate to appeal issues are: (1) corporation, person, whether a as well as a assert natural exception II Section Article of the Montana (the Know”); Constitution (2) governmental whether agency can assert another’s Section privacy interest; Article II deny whether disclosure of the information would due
process companies; to insurance
(4) whether declaring the District Court erred Section 33-1- 412(5), MCA, unconstitutional. Reversed remanded.
Appellant is a member of the National Association of Insurance (NAIC). developed Commissioners Regula- The NAIC the Insurance tory (IRIS) System regulation Information to assist of insur- companies throughout ance the nation. The NAIC issues IRIS re- *3 ports its to members to them in reviewing assist the financial affairs of reports (1) insurance “phases”; cover two a statis- phase tical of supplied calculations derived from data insur- the companies’ (2) statements, ance analytical annual financial and phase analyzes Ap- which the phase. information the statistical pellant reports receives these regular Appellant on a and ami- basis. argue cus participate NAIC that Montana will not be to allowed system appellant the IRIS divulge reports. if has to the IRIS publishes explanatory record shows the stating that NAIC material reports produced that phases IRIS under the two are confidential and departments regulatory are furnished to the state insurance for only. use
Respondent Belth an Indiana resident the of a editor monthly publication 1985, Insurance Forum. In entitled March he sought reports appellant’s possession. Appel- access to the IRIS initially lant respondent indicated access that would be allowed to Subsequently, the appellant information. access to refused allow respondent. 1985, August respondent
In complaint in Lewis filed a the County declaratory Clark seeking judgment District Court a that appellant provide direct him to the IRIS infor- would with access II, Respondent principally upon mation. relied Article Section Know”) (vulgarly the Montana the Constitution called complaint. provides: for the basis his That section person or deprived right “No to examine documents shall be public agencies or of state to observe the of all bodies deliberations subdivisions, except in cases in which the de- and its government clearly public privacy mand of the merits of individual exceeds disclosure.” (1) August appellant asserting,
In filed answer that her 33-1-412(5),MCA, the infor- gave Section her the to withhold (2) mation; cause unwarranted that release the information could subjects of the injury companies were (3) reports; reports matters of IRIS that the IRIS contain individual (4) access; IRIS protected and are from public investigative contain which is not matter information MCA, 33-1-412(5), provides: record. Section any may inspection public “The from ex- commissioner withhold investigation report long or for so as he deems such with- amination person necessary protection holding to be for examined injury against unwarranted or to be interest.” February 1986, summary judg- In respondent Belth moved August judgment for ment. In entered re- District Court respondent spondent appellant provide with access ordered possession appellant. The court to all documents is- (1) that, finding explaining sued a memorandum its decision and (such analyzed corporation in the IRIS as the insurance II, reports) exception Article could not assert the (2) 9; official,by of his her office or Section that no reason employment, claim on behalf of an individ- could (3) ual; that all docu- presumption is a constitutional “[t]here every ments of are amenable to kind the hands officials exceptions being inspection, legislation, special made to regardless of police power accommodate and other the exercise of constitutional interests, process;” competing constitutional as due (the 33-1-412(5),MCA, deny- appellant upon statute which relied *4 ing clearly in respondent) access to conflict with the constitutional is (Section II) “Right to of Article because it establishes Know” 9 secrecy any showing privacy is a interest area of without that there involved, clearly exceeding merits privacy much interest the of less a MCA, 33-1-412(5), disclosure; uncon- therefore Section
345 ap- unquestionably on its stitutional face unconstitutional plied. appeal This followed. corporation,
The first issue is whether as well as natural person, privacy exception assert constitu can the “Right already ques tional This has ruled on that Know.” Court States, Reg. (Mont. 1981), Dept. Etc. v. Pub. Mt. Serv. tion. In 181, 1479, St.Rep. corporation 634 P.2d 38 held could as we that a privacy sert exception. the corporation privacy demands of individual of a well as of
“[T]he person clearly disclosure, might exceed the merits of exception thus within provision.” come of the know States, Etc., Mt. Therefore, 634 P.2d in- at 188. the District Court correctly corporation held privacy excep- that a not could assert the tion to the to Know.” agency
The next issue
governmental
is whether a
assert the
can
Rights
City
v.
another. Montana Human
Div.
interest of
In
(Mont. 1982),
Billings
434,
1283,
St.Rep.
199 Mont.
P.2d
30
City
we allowed
Billings
assert
interests
employees.
City
its
argued
personal
had
that
if it disclosed
employees
information about
their
without
consent or a court order
directing
so,
it
revealing
to do
it could be sued for
information.
We agreed
“potential
injury
that
economic
is sufficient to establish
Rights Division,
Montana Human
standing.”
The next issue we address is whether the District Court erred declaring 33-1-412(5), MCA, unconstitutional on its face applied and as disagree case. We the statute is unconsti MCA, 33-1-412(5), tutional its appellant face. Section allows certain public inspection withhold from where such with holding “necessary person protection examined against injury unwarranted We interest.” note [is] that, duty uphold constitutionality is the of the courts to
“[i]t legislative if accomplished by enactments reasonable construction.” Services,
North (Mont. 1981), Central Inc. v. Hafdahl [_Mont. -,] 56, 58, Moreover, St.Rep. general 625 P.2d 374. “[t]he rule is differing possible interpretations that whenever there are *5 346
statute, is interpretation over one that a constitutional is favored (Mont. 1985), Department State Lands v. Pettibone not.” [216 of 869, 948, 956, 361,] St.Rep. 42 878. Mont. 702 P.2d Section interpretation, effect we hold that the To a constitutional to, MCA, 33-1-412(51, exception public inspection is identical to with, “Right privacy exception to the coextensive words, statutory appellant only invoke the ex- Know.” In other II, 9, when, of ception of Article “the demand the words privacy clearly of disclosure.” individual exceeds the merits expres- statutory simply language We is an alternative find that the exception. this is a privacy We believe that sion of the constitutional duty up- and it fulfills our reasonable construction of the statute constitutionality legislative The District hold the of enactments. MCA, 33-1-412(5), was unconstitutional Court stated that Section secrecy any showing, legislatively establishing “as without an area of all, otherwise, at much privacy or there is a interest involved that clearly dis- privacy less a interest exceeds the merits that area of se- disagree. closure.” does not establish an We The statute crecy. appellant make the initial deci- The statute does authorize sion, privacy language, line with the constitutional whether rights outweigh the need for disclosure. ruling that the statute disagree
We also with the lower court’s gave no rea applied was as this case. The court unconstitutional balancing soning perform behind this assertion nor did the court Apparently, the privacy test between the merits of and disclosure. ap applied because court found the statute unconstitutional as “Right to privacy exception to the plication corporations a allowed have no corporations could Know” and the court had ruled that pri above, corporations can assert exception. As we ruled error, Therefore, will vacy ruling as we exception. the court’s is develop opinion. further this case, we find that this
Given record the state of the insur proper position Court is in a to balance the demands public disclo companies’ privacy rights against the merits of ance this is provision. We believe that sure under the to Know” author exercise its undoubted an instance when this Court “should expeditiously litigation as ity disposing to take the initiative Bank Montana Co. v. Miner’s possible . . .” Sun River Cattle 19, 20; rel. La (1974), 479, 481, quoting State ex P.2d 164 Mont. 525 206, 211, (1909), 105 Copper Court 40 Mont. France Co. v. District 721, two-part test this step, apply the preliminary P. we 723. As determining Court has there exists a consti- established for whether tutionally per- protected test “whether the interest. That expectation subjective son involved actual had recognize expectation society willing whether that reasona- Higher (Mont. Regents 1984), v. ble.” Missoulian Board Educ. 110, 513,] St.Rep. Mont. 675 P.2d 116. We find [207 expec- subjective have or actual the insurance did privacy in reports. previously, tation of the IRIS As noted NAIC explanatory material states that IRIS are confidential and only. are furnished We find regulatory states for use also expectations agreed those are reasonable. This Court has that,
“[t]ime, place are in and status factors the reasonableness determi- nation. But the determination should include consideration of all circumstances, including relevant the nature of the information sought. (Emphasis original.)”
Missoulian, Here, possibil- P.2d at 968. the NAIC of the warns ity inaccuracy of reports. regard, explana- the IRIS In this NAIC tory provides following material the caveats: nonparticipation compa-
“Two limitations of IRIS are the of some nies, keying analytical the phase process and of the to a mechanical that has some process uncontrollable elements. The mechanical dependent accuracy on the and standardization the annual of state- by ments filed identify the insurers. ratios cannot a misstate- or, situations, ment of financial condition in certain a statement not prepared proper Also, possibility the format. there exists the of processing data errors. reasonably
“IRIS has distinguishing been effective in between stated, however, previously troubled and As sound the are They statistical ratios not in themselves are determinative. sub- ject company previous to individual From circumstances. sections of chapter, following emerge: the caveats rely
“1. only No state can on IRIS as its form of surveillance. — — Important “2. licensing decisions are not based on analysis IRIS company without further or of examination the concerned.
“3. interpretation Valid of depends ratio data to considerable ex- judgment company may tent on the A of financial examiners. methods, range accounting outside usual of or because unusual corrected, matters that have been other circumstances. values, determining range the useful- “5. criteria for usual ratios, experience in may . . not ness of such . be valid future reason, components of the periods. different For this economic annually updated necessary.” ratios are reviewed companies’ The nature of the insurance this information increases confidentiality expectations privacy. of Given the NAIC assurance of information, possibility and the we hold admitted inaccurate reasonable. companies’ expectations insurance Therefore, privacy interest constitutionally protected there is a reports. IRIS issue,
Finally, dispositive balancing we test between reach the individual are es- and disclosure. The demands of Borchardt, the chief examiner tablished affidavit James states, part, Department. State Insurance His affidavit constitute “3. That the information contained preliminary insurance evaluation of the financial condition of the company . . . being reported on any against an prior taking type regulatory
“4. That action is nec- company complete financial examination a full essary. not ade- That of themselves do the IRIS documents quately provide picture company’s financial con- an accurate of the explain fully its company opportunity That to dition. afford a necessary or exam- qualified examiner financial condition it is for a company in total. iners to review the books and records prob- initially pointing potential “5. That the while out IRIS tests dispositive condition. the issue financial lem are not company possibility That there real that a identified exists a *7 financially is sound. the limits being IRIS tests as outside statistical adequate examination To release the without IRIS information (Em- potentially jeopardizes company’s reputation. the business added.)” phasis one. substantial privacy
We find that interest at stake the Parenthetically, supports our con- affidavit we note that Borchardt’s are companies’ expectations clusion that the insurance reasonable. disclosing
Respondent there is substantial benefit argues that reports are reports. Respondent’s indicates the the IRIS affidavit or companies experiencing financial difficulties identifying useful public agree be some problems. imminent We that there would with would out- not that benefit benefit to We do find that disclosure. The of disclosure weigh privacy. the individual benefits demands of final, relatively availability non- are diminished of similar the subjective regulatory made the Montana’s examinations State. following provisions. scheme for insurance includes the 33-1-401, MCA, provides Section that the insurance commissioner accounts, affairs, transactions, records, “shall examine the assets years every once each authorized” domestic insurer at least three and of as he The com- other authorized insurers deems advisable. may accept making missioner another state’s examination lieu 33-1-412, MCA, provides her own. Section commissioner report shall examination reports make a each such and that “shall books, comprise only records, appearing papers, facts from testimony. documents” or ascertained also from sworn That section (1) entity copy report, states that the examined shall receive (2) possibility hearing report, modify- for the of a for ing report proper. as the commissioner deems Section 33-1- 412(5), MCA, provides also that the commissioner withhold reports, above, as we held accordance with the constitutional 33-2-701,MCA, provision. every to Know” Under Section au- thorized insurer file must an annual financial with the statement MCA, 33-1-312, provides part: commissioner. Section “(1) permanent commissioner shall enter form records of transactions, examinations, his investigations, proceed- official ings keep such records in his office. Such records and insurance filings in his open inspection except office shall be to the provided respect particular otherwise in this code with records or filings.”
Finally, 33-2-721, MCA, requires product liability Section in- each annual, surer to file an report, including detailed informa- business premiums collected, losses, tion on premiums, earned incurred loss reserves, reports etc. Those a reasona- available to the 33-2-722, ble fee. Section from MCA. differ above subjective described preliminary, State examinations their preliminary, subjective quality nature. It is this particularly upon intrudes at interest stake. availability comparable
Given the of other information and the preliminary, subjective that the reports, nature of the IRIS we hold demands of outweigh individual merits of disclo- Thus, sure. appellant may properly deny respondent Belth ac- that, contrary cess reports. to the IRIS A further result is order, 33-1-412(5), MCA, District Court constitutional applied deny in this respondent. case to access *8 with entry judgment accordance
Reversed and remanded opinion. HARRI- MR. JUSTICES TURNAGE and MR. CHIEF JUSTICE and WEBER concur. SON HUNT, dissenting:
MR. JUSTICE Judge should Sheehy. Bennett agree I of Justice with dissent upheld. be right to know should and the citizen’s be affirmed will take many lurking in the future that majority finds devils balancing comes down on if our act advantage of our foolishness example the right know. For buyer and our side of the insurance if the commis- might state be sued majority is that the concerned company. about an insurance injurious information sioner releases specu- going to long as we are to that coin. As There is another side signals ob- late, view, company flying distress my then in to allow potential cus- hidden from only the commissioner but servable litigation for future interesting possibilities presents far more tomers industry. by the furnished than release of information inanity dissent, approaches Sheehy says in his “It As Justice know which shall not be allowed that Montana insureds hold they are or that doing in Montana troubled business companies.” troubled certainly showing signs of trouble would company
A trouble In something else. bal- expectation is privacy, the realistic want but relatively sophisticated insurance ancing privacy of a generally less rights of doing in Montana with the company business insurance, I would purchase who seek to consumer-citizens informed company know about expectation of the citizen to hold informa- agency to warehouse clearly outweighs of a state the need secrecy deny citizens tion affirmed.
The District Court should SHEEHY, dissenting: MR. JUSTICE Joseph right beyond opinion goes far majority I dissent. The majority reports. The to IRIS gain access M. Belth from Indiana to ex- they right to have no citizens that told Montana effect have hand the office reports on in IRIS certain information amine about Insurance Commissioner Auditor and the State alone that reason business. For do companies with which Montanans indefensible. majority opinion is inexcusable majority opinion II, defies Article State Section Montana Constitution which states: person deprived to know. No shall be to ex-
amine documents or to observe the deliberations of all bodies agencies government subdivisions, except or of state and its in cases clearly which the demand of individual exceeds the merits disclosure.” question case, deciding which we should in this be and adversely by is majority opinion, decided foregoing is whether Montanans have company doing a to that an insurance know business in company” this state been has identified as a “troubled by IRIS, company” and being that such “troubled licensed or con- by tinues to be “right licensed the state auditor. If the to know” provision of the anything, state Constitution it means means that specific this information should be available to Montana insureds any organization and to or entities that would funnel such informa- tion to Montana insureds. discussing issue,
In given corporation I take that as a as well as a person natural exception assert the under the constitutional know because we said so Mountain Telephone States Telegraph Department Co. v. Public Ser- (Mont. Regulation 1981), vice [_Mont._,] 634 P.2d St.Rep. 1479. I accept given found, also what the District Court 33-1-412(5), MCA, valid, applies if otherwise to well investigation reports reports as to specifically examination which are covered under that section.
Unexplained by majority and undiscussed is how do- information, open main anyone, private becomes when it is run through computer. a unexplained Also undiscussed ma- jority why precluded or how Montanans should from be informa- tion which companies would tell them how insurance licensed in this up state stack compared companies when with other insurance the same business. system
We are informed how the IRIS works the brief of amicus NAIC Association of Insurance brief [National Its Commissioners]. states: year
“Once a reports the NAIC disseminates each statistical state department. range insurance set forth a usual previous ratio on results based IRIS run cer- studies. ratios are tain surplus pre- items taken from the annual statements such as compared mium and are range. to the usual the results If range, testing produce this indicates values outside the normal prepares need examination. The NAIC a list which then for further normal highlights reflecting those values outside the point, regulators range. At this take this information solvency. analyzing combine it with their internal methods of own analysis Internally, department’s examiner will conduct detailed “The ratios dis- of all of the information which has been submitted. Respondent. published are available to the cussed above are statements, compiled actually annual The ratio results are from Respondent. which statements are also available to The results produced any which state are not from secret source of material results, however, open designed ratio records acts are to reveal. The product with its are work of the NAIC and are shared confidential regulators solely on the results not member basis divulged public. analytical employs phase
“The a team examiners Companies analysts selected and financial to review the ratio results. designated with four or more ratios review are those which were *10 targeted range, companies to outside of the normal in addition objective previous year. The overall requiring in the attention require immediate identify companies appear is to which to regulatory attention. (Emphasis supplied.)” Montanans and majority opinion has erected a wall between companies regulators the information have determined some compa- require regulatory Such “appear to immediate attention.” by given nies have been an unwarranted majority. types interest as corporations
No are so affected with institutions, insurance It are financial which include highly are so corporations because of this interest that such compa Insurance regulated both state and federal authorities. though in nies, however, Even subject regulation. federal are not v. commerce, United States companies part of surance interstate 533, (1944), 64 South-Eastern Association U.S. Underwriters 322 the states the Congress delegated S.Ct. 88 L.Ed. McCarran-Fergu companies duty regulating under insurance regula principal through son Act. 1011 1015. 15 U.S.C. Sections of Insurance Association tors in have formed the National each state one, reg Commissioners, mind, provide effective with two ends time make the companies, and at the same ulation insurance IRIS was possible. told that regulation as We are little onerous property casualty industry established in for the as an aid companies regulators engaged industry.. state companies interest, Because insurance are affected with the broadly regulated, expectation and because their activities are company begin of an insurance does not level to rise to the mining company of a or retail store chain. viewpoint
From the regulation, compa- three kinds of insurance may (1) nies be authorized to do business this state: domestic insurers, having that is those domiciled or their home office this state; (2) insurers, foreign companies that is having domiciled or their home office outside of Montana but one of the United States territories; insurers, or its companies alien that is insurance domiciled in a foreign country represented in the United States (or manager Canada, in the case of an officer of the Canadian corporation). 33-2-215, See Sections 33-2-111 and MCA.
An company, domestic, alien, insurance foreign, whether desir- ing to do insurance business in this state must obtain a certificate of authority from the commissioner in this who state is the state audi- 33-2-101, tor. Section may MCA. Each authorized insurer be ex- affairs, transactions, accounts, amined as to its records and assets as often as the state auditor deems advisable but domestic insurers must be frequently examined not every years. less than three Sec- 33-1-401, tion All MCA. provisions requir- other states have like ing Obviously if separate examinations. from the 50 examiners states willy-nilly descended authorized to states, transact respective business in the company business would disrupted and the cost would be To avoid burdensome. problem, supervises the NAIC orderly examinations man- ner in participate regional the states on a the exam- basis and ination results are made available to all the states in which the in- examinations, surer is authorized. The as far as Montana is concerned, expense 33-1-413, are at the of the insurer. Section MCA. *11 system said,
The by IRIS applies, conducted the NAIC have as we property casualty business. The ratios which are used published, IRIS open are public. and are to the Each required authorized insurer is to file with the state auditor annually condition, a statement of its financial and af- transactions 33-2-701, fairs as preceding. of the December 31 Section MCA. statutory provisions Those investigation which exami- make nation apply confidential do not to annual statements. Sec- 33-1-412(5), tion MCA. The material contained the annual state- open public. ment is by
Thus the basic information used IRIS information. published applies utilizes ratios and those to filed ratios annual statements, to achieve results which IRIS now considers confiden- tial. It is expectation nonsense to hold that there is an the results so derived from approaches inanity information. It to hold that Montana insureds shall not be allowed to know which companies troubled doing they are business Montana or that troubled possible Such should have the least expectation privacy. problem presented phases in this case has two which should closely examined, 1), NAIC, itself, by impose whether confi-
dentiality 2), so as to overrule our constitutional to know and auditor, 33-1-412(5), MCA, may whether the state under Section public inspection withhold from investigation report obtained monies, report with tax regulation she uses in the of insurers. It should be provision clear that our right-to- constitutional depend know does confidentiality by not on a classification of (1983), NAIC. In San Superior Tribune v. Court Gabriel Cal.App.3d Rptr. 192 Cal. it was held assurances confidentiality by city disposal company to a the data private would remain was not sufficient to convert what was a private record into a If record. we countenance such assertion of
confidentiality, provision to know will soon become worthless. phase,
As Judge to the second District Gordon Bennett concen- 33-1-412(5), MCA, trated on whether Section constitutional so was empower as to the state auditor to withhold the information. The Judge 33-1-412(5), District found that Section was unconstitutional facially applied. ought and as His determination to be sustained us. opening paragraph Judge of District discussion on Bennett’s
right-to-know repeating: is worth
“An extraordinary through proposal theme ran and considera- entirely They tion of three sections of the novel 1972 Constitution. (8), ‘right participation’ were the Section sometimes called the ‘open meeting’ section; (9), ‘right ‘right to know’ Section and the privacy’ rights’ Article all found the ‘declaration of except may II. The theme was that as it be limited personal privacy, individual to there is to be Montana a
355 broad-based, pervasive right to what and absolute of citizens know their government right participate govern- on a to in going in and government ment untrammeled the itself.” indicated, know, Judge As District in determining right Bennett to II, 9,8, the three sections of Article and must Sections 10 be read (which together. provides right privacy 10 of individual a corporations) we applies have determined to be in- which shall not fringed showing compelling the of 9 without a state interest. Section gives persons right a to all examine documents the observe agencies deliberations government of all bodies or of ex- state cept clearly where privacy the demands of individual exceed the of requires governmental merits 8 agencies disclosure. Section opportunity participation afford reasonable for citizens’ in the operation agencies prior to the decision “as may of provided final by law.” It should be clear because the insurers are with so affected interest, because the depen- affairs their insureds so insurers, dent on property may and because casualty losses af- parties fect third compelling that there is a state interest which any right overrides open up individual of an insurer to information company doing business state is “troubled.” The divulg- state auditor and the NAIC contend that ing such may company” information result in “a run the but it may important be more make run insured to before the company is authority found jerked. insolvent its certificate of obviously Section 8 governmental agencies open up intends that prior the decision of the regulators. information final light In II, the of the three Judge sections Article Ben- District 33-1-412(5) nett facially determined that Section was unconstitu- tional applied. particular and invalid as adopted That was statute adoption provisions before the state constitutional provisions convention of 1972. This is first case which the 33-1-412(5) of Section been light have examined of those con- provisions. stitutional Judge District re- Bennett made an extensive convention, view proceedings of the constitutional from it determined that an legislature performs act of the which in effect balancing right function between right to know and the grant the, individual was not within He convention. courts, found it to prerogative be the the legislature and not “parameters rights define guaranteed by and incidents of the Sec- tions government 10.” He therefore agencies held that while may legislation perform initially be authorized appropriate balancing act between the to know and the “it is the exclusive function of the state’s courts to make final determi- any given nation as to is dominant in case.” proper regard With a therefore to what the constitutional conven- 8, 9, II, adopting tion intended Sections and 10 of Article we postulated by should examine the reasons the NAIC and the state confidentiality in auditor for this case. What are those reasons? insolvency First it is contended that of the insurer could result *13 company” instigated by misinterpretation “run on the of IRIS data by interpret those not trained to the test results. That claim is pretty property casualty If far-fetched. insureds cancel their policies, premium their be short refunds would calculated adequately by rate basis which would be covered 33-2-512, premium unearned reserves. Section MCA.
Secondly responsible we are told that those for IRIS data collec- they may potentially reporting. tion fear in If the liable errors unreliable, perhaps ought IRIS data is that the state auditor not to any use the information event.
Third, Department if we are told that the Montana Insurance results, required to IRIS it will not be able disclose thereafter contended, participate system which, in the IRIS it is would have a ability devastating Department’s to monitor the sol- effect on vency foreign companies. has few of its domestic as well as Montana insurers, any if property casualty if and we doubt domestic occur, out, long finding if it that a state auditor would be should company” under IRIS de- domestic insurer was fact a “troubled monitoring foreign terminations. Other states would be Finally, important we IRIS information is to the state are told that foreign determining authorize a auditor whether to company Again, questioning to do business Montana. astute authority applicant would the state auditor of an for a certificate of quickly standing. determine its IRIS information con- withholding
None of these contended reasons for citi- overweigh of our tained the state auditor governmental bodies participate zens to in the debate before their decision, access to information which before the and to have final I the Dis- officials. Therefore would sustain the hands of trict Court.