Washington Post Co. v. New York State Ins. Dept.

• Decision Date: 29 March 1984
• Parties: , 463 N.E.2d 604, 10 Media L. Rep. 1668 In the Matter of THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT et al., Respondents, and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al., Intervenors-Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 263

475 N.Y.S.2d 263

61 N.Y.2d 557, 463 N.E.2d 604, 10

Media L. Rep. 1668

In the Matter of THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT et al., Respondents, and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 29, 1984.

[463 N.E.2d 605] Janet E. Milne, of the Maine and District of Columbia Bars, admitted pro hac vice, for appellant

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City (Paul M. Glickman, Peter H. Schiff, Asst. Attys. Gen., New York City, and Martin Minkowitz, Brooklyn, of counsel), for New York State Ins. Dept. and another, respondents.

[61 N.Y.2d 560] John R. O'Hanlon, Robert A. Kirtland and John L. Ryan, New York City, for New York Life Ins. Co., intervenor-respondent.

William J. Toppeta and John L. Viola, New York City, for Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., intervenor-respondent.

[61 N.Y.2d 561] Werner Weinstock and Norman L. Tolle, New York City, for The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, intervenor-respondent.

[61 N.Y.2d 562] Cornish F. Hitchcock, John Cary Sims and Alan B. Morrison, Washington, D.C., for Freedom of Information Clearing House, amicus curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

COOKE, Chief Judge.

The minutes of insurance company meetings that are given by the companies to the New York State Insurance Department for its examination constitute "records" within the meaning of the New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). Consequently, they are subject to public review under FOIL unless it is established that the documents are, in whole or in part, subject to a statutory exemption.

Under New York's regulatory system, the affairs of domestic insurance companies are subject to examination by the respondent State Insurance Department (see Insurance Law, art. 3 et seq.). To facilitate this review, the insurance companies are required to maintain certain books and records, including minutes of the corporate board of directors' meetings; to provide respondent with access to these documents at reasonable hours; and to co-operate with respondent in facilitating such examinations (see Insurance Law, §§ 26-a, 28, 29). A long-standing practice, formalized by the use of circular letters since 1927, developed among insurance companies for the voluntary sending of copies of their minutes to the respondent's offices, rather than requiring the respondent's examiners to travel to each insurance company for inspections. Respondent promised to keep such records confidential.

In 1980, a reporter from petitioner, The Washington Post, filed a formal request under FOIL with respondent for access to the minutes of the meetings of the Boards of Directors or Trustees and certain finance committees of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, New York Life Insurance Company, and The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States for the years 1978 through 1980. After initially refusing the request, respondent indicated that the records would be disclosed, except for those portions that might be deemed exempt under section 87 (subd. 2, par. [d] ) of the Public Officers Law by respondent and the insurance companies after they had an opportunity to review the documents. Subsequently, the Department again reversed itself, denying all access on the grounds that the minutes were not "records" within the purview of FOIL or, alternatively, that they were exempt from that law's disclosure requirements. In addition, respondent asserted that its grant of confidentiality precluded disclosure and best protected the interests of policyholders.

The Committee on Public Access to Records concluded, in an advisory opinion sought by petitioner, that a blanket denial of access to the minutes was improper because they were "records" under FOIL which should be disclosed to the extent that respondent, after a complete review, did not establish grounds for exemption. When respondent continued to refuse access, petitioner instituted this article 78 proceeding to compel disclosure of the documents. The three affected insurance companies were granted leave to intervene.

Special Term granted the petition, holding that the corporate board meeting minutes were "records" regardless of whether the submission of the documents was voluntary. It provided for in camera inspection of those portions which the intervenors or respondent wished to claim were subject to an exemption from the disclosure requirement of FOIL. Before the inspection was held, an appeal was taken.

The Appellate Division, 94 A.D.2d 208, 462 N.Y.S.2d 208, reversed, holding that the documents were not "records" as defined in FOIL because they did not aid any governmental decision-making. Rather, they were the private property of the intervenors, voluntarily put in the respondent's "custody" for convenience under a promise of confidentiality. This court now reverses.

The statutorily stated policy behind FOIL is to promote "[t]he people's right to know the process of governmental decision-making and to review the documents and statistics leading to determinations" (Public Officers Law, § 84). Consistent with this policy, the Legislature restructured FOIL in 1977 (L.1977, ch. 933, § 1) to make the vast majority of requested documents presumptively discoverable as "records" under the very broad definition contained therein: "any information kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced by, with or for any agency or the state legislature, in any physical form whatsoever including, but not limited to, reports, statements, examinations, memoranda, opinions, folders, files, books, manuals, pamphlets, forms, papers, designs, drawings, maps, photo, letters, microfilms, computer tapes or discs, rules, regulations or codes" (Public Officers Law, § 86, subd. 4; see Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v. Kimball, 50 N.Y.2d 575, 580, 430 N.Y.S.2d 574, 408 N.E.2d 904). FOIL is generally liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government (see Matter of Fink v. Lefkowitz, 47 N.Y.2d 567, 571, 419 N.Y.S.2d 467, 393 N.E.2d 463). The task before this court now is to determine whether the requested minutes are within the scope of FOIL, and if so, whether they are subject to an exemption under the statute.

The requested minutes are "records" under the plain language of FOIL because they are "information kept, held, filed, produced * * * by, with or for an agency." When the plain language of the statute is precise and unambiguous, it is determinative (see Roth v. Michelson, 55 N.Y.2d 278, 283, 449 N.Y.S.2d 159, 434 N.E.2d 228; Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. v. City of New York, 41 N.Y.2d 205, 208, 391 N.Y.S.2d 544, 359 N.E.2d 1338). Additionally, inclusion of the documents requested here furthers the policy behind FOIL. The minutes are reviewed by respondent as part of its statutory duty to supervise and regulate the insurance industry for the protection of the interests of the people of this State (see Insurance Law, §§ 26-a, 27, 28, 55 et seq., 196 et seq.). Respondent's determination as to whether statutory violations have occurred and should be remedied are affected by its inspection of the minutes (see, e.g., Insurance Law, § 56, subd. 4; § 57, subd. 1; § 67, subd. 3). Thus, the documents are relevant to a governmental decision-making process. Moreover, "[t]he statutory definition of 'record' makes nothing turn on the purpose for which a document was produced or the function to which it relates" (Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v. Kimball, 50 N.Y.2d 575, 581, 430 N.Y.S.2d 574, 408 N.E.2d 904, supra ). As the expanding boundaries of government become "increasingly difficult to draw * * * there is bound to be considerable crossover between governmental and nongovernmental activities" (id., at p. 581, 430 N.Y.S.2d 574, 408 N.E.2d 904).

Respondent's long-standing promise of confidentiality to the intervenors is irrelevant to whether the requested documents fit within the Legislature's definition of "records" under FOIL. The definition does not exclude or make any reference to information labeled as "confidential" by the agency; confidentiality is relevant only when determining whether the record or a portion of it is exempt (see Matter of John P. v. Whalen, 54 N.Y.2d 89, 96, 444 N.Y.S.2d 598, 429 N.E.2d 117; Matter of Fink v. Lefkowitz, 47 N.Y.2d 567, 571-572, 419 N.Y.S.2d 467, 393 N.E.2d 463, supra; Church of Scientology v. State of New York, 61 A.D.2d 942, 942-943, 403 N.Y.S.2d 224, affd. 46 N.Y.2d 906, 414 N.Y.S.2d 900, 387 N.E.2d 1216; Matter of Belth v. Insurance Dept., 95 Misc.2d 18, 19-20, 406 N.Y.S.2d 649). Nor is it relevant that the documents originated outside the government (see Matter of John P. v. Whalen, supra, 54 N.Y.2d at pp. 92-93, 444 N.Y.S.2d 598, 429 N.E.2d 117 [patient's medical records obtained during investigation of doctor were "records", although exempt] ). Such a factor is not mentioned or implied in the statutory definition of records or in the statement of purpose (see Public Officers Law, §§ 84, 86, subd. 4).

Once determined to be "records", the...