Category: Bond Articles

Commercial Lines Modernization Bills Moving in the States

Members should visit Advocacy / General Info (Members) for more information.

SFAA Addresses Surety Qualifications and Bonding Obligation for California Workers? Compensation Collateral Requirements

SFAA submitted comments to the California Department of Insurance (Department) to address proposed rules that would allow surety bonds to be posted to collateralize up to 20% of the funds required to be set aside for the California deductible under a workers’ compensation deductible policy. We questioned the requirement for the surety to have a rating of at least an “A” from A.M. Best, Fitch Ratings, or Standard & Poor’s, or at least an A3 rating from Moody’s Investor Service as sureties already are subject to financial regulation and licensure from the Department. The rating requirement needlessly restricts the sureties that can provide the bond.

SFAA also recommended that the bond?s condition should be clarified to reflect a specific obligation as the proposed rules currently provide for unconditional payments. The surety also would have ten days to pay the amount owed under a written demand for payment from the insurer. SFAA also advised the Department on the value of bonds in comparison to the other forms of security permitted under the proposed rules.

The surety could not be affiliated with the insurer that issued the worker’s compensation deductible policy. The surety must provide 90 days’ notice for cancellation or nonrenewal of the bond and the collateral would have to be replaced within 30 days of the effective date.

Members should visit Advocacy / General Info (Members) for more information.

SFAA Addresses Changes to Georgia Bond Requirements for Livestock Sales

SFAA Addresses Changes to Georgia Bond Requirements for Livestock Sales SFAA submitted comments to the Georgia Department of Agriculture (Department) to address proposed regulations that implement a new law that permits livestock dealers and auction operators to obtain a letter of credit, certificate of deposit, or “other written instrument” in lieu of the bond.  SFAA promoted the value of bonds in comparison to other forms of security based on the surety?s prequalification of the bond principal and the financial protection offered in the event of a default.  The proposed rules also implement a change in the law that deleted the specified bond amounts for a livestock auction operator and for dealers purchasing livestock at an auction.  Instead, the amount of the bond or other security will be determined through a memorandum of agreement with the Department, which must be sufficient to secure the performance of the dealer or the operator’s obligations.  To ensure that the amount of financial protection is the same, the amount required should be the same regardless of the form of security that is furnished.

Members should visit Advocacy / General Info (Members) for more information.

SFAA Comments on Arkansas Pharmacy Benefit Managers Regulations

SFAA submitted comments to the Arkansas Insurance Department (Department) to address proposed regulations that would require pharmacy benefit managers (PBM) to post a $1 million license bond.  The proposed rules would permit direct actions on the bond.  If the bond amount would cause the PBM significant financial hardship, the Insurance Commissioner could reduce the amount required.  We explained the surety?s underwriting process and noted that the high bond amount could reduce the bond?s availability.  Similarly, we explained that the proposed regulations contain a broad obligation in the bond?s conditions with regard to complying with any statute.  We recommended that the scope of the bond?s conditions be limited to compliance with the applicable laws and regulations for PBMs.  SFAA offered to work with the Department on these issues to improve the bond?s availability.  The proposed rules also provide that a PBM that furnishes a $1 million bond under the PBM regulation need not furnish a $25,000 bond under the TPA regulation.

Members should visit Advocacy / General Info (Members) for more information.

Statutory and Regulatory Provisions Governing Fidelity and Surety Filing Requirements – Rate and Form Filing Status By Jurisdiction  SFAA?s Rate and Form Filing Chart has been updated for recent statutory changes.

For Members only (or navigate to Member Services / Regulatory)

SFAA Working on Oklahoma Bill that Prohibits Retainage When Bonds are in Place

SFAA and AIA are working with the local surety association in Oklahoma to address HB 2676, which would prohibit the withholding of retainage from the general contractor on public buildings and public works projects if bonds under the Little Miller Act are in place. Oklahoma’s bond threshold is $50,000, and existing law provides that not more than 5% of the contract price may be withheld. For subcontractors, the bill provides that either retainage of not more than 5% may be withheld or performance and maintenance bonds could be required as a condition of the subcontract.

Members should visit Government Relations / General Info (Members) for more information.

This guide is designed to serve obligees who may want to verify the
authenticity of surety bonds that they are being asked to accept. The
most reliable way to authenticate a surety bond is to contact the
issuing surety company directly. However, it is often difficult to
ascertain the correct address, telephone number or person to contact at
the surety.

Accordingly, this guide contains a list of SFAA surety
company members that have volunteered to be included together with
information as to how they can be contacted for the purposes of
authenticating a bond. Since participation in this program is voluntary,
not every surety company is listed.

Verify Your Bond – Bond Obligee Guide

SFAA Addressing Proposed Bond Threshold Increase and P3 Pilot Program in Vermont

SFAA is addressing HB 917, which would increase the bond threshold from $100,000 to $500,000.  As drafted, the bill would have provided for a $1 million bond threshold.  The bill also would provide for a pilot program for the Agency of Transportation to enter into public-private partnerships (P3s) for transportation infrastructure projects.  The state legislature would set the requirements and would have to approve each P3 project, unless the project will have a project lifetime cost that is less than $2 million or the project has been approved in the most recently adopted Transportation Program.  The bill does not specify a bonding requirement for this P3 program.  The program would expire on July 1, 2023.

Members should visit Government Relations / General Info (Members) for more information.

Indiana Bill to Require Bonding in P3s Goes to Study

Indiana HB 1301, as introduced, contained the amendments that SFAA drafted to require the design and construction portion of P3s to be bonded in Indiana. Our bonding amendments were part of the Insurance Department’s bill, and would have required 100% bonds, just as the Indiana Little Miller Act requires for any other project. In the House Insurance Committee, the bill was amended to require 50% payment and performance bonds, and on second reading on the House floor, the bond amount was further reduced to 25% before it later passed the House. It was not possible to reach an agreement to move HB 1301 forward in the Senate. It is likely that the issue of bonding on P3 projects in Indiana will be sent to a summer study committee, which is where the issue was last summer.

Members should visit Government Relations / General Info (Members) for more information.