1 / 19

Bond Approved – Is Your Responsibility Satisfied? Lack of follow-up puts agent and surety in difficult situations. P

Bond Approved – Is Your Responsibility Satisfied? Lack of follow-up puts agent and surety in difficult situations. Presented by: Timothy D. Martin Ward, Hocker & Thornton, PLLC 9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 700 Louisville, Kentucky 40222 Telephone: (502) 583-7012.

ipo
Télécharger la présentation

Bond Approved – Is Your Responsibility Satisfied? Lack of follow-up puts agent and surety in difficult situations. P

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Bond Approved – Is Your Responsibility Satisfied? Lack of follow-up puts agent and surety in difficult situations. Presented by: Timothy D. Martin Ward, Hocker & Thornton, PLLC 9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 700 Louisville, Kentucky 40222 Telephone: (502) 583-7012 February 7, 2012

  2. PRESENTER BIOGRAPHY Tim Martin is a member of the firm Ward Hocker & Thornton in its Louisville, KY office. He is a 1984 graduate of the University of Louisville, School of Law. He holds an undergraduate degree in accounting from the University of Louisville. From 1979 through 1984 he was employed as a bond underwriter with Reliance Insurance Company. His responsibilities included underwriting contract and miscellaneous surety accounts, fidelity, and financial institution bonds. Following graduation from law school he served 4 years as a prosecutor and since 1989 has concentrated his practice in the representation of surety/fidelity carriers, insurance carriers, and financial institutions. 2 February 7, 2012

  3. SCENARIO NO. 1 Homebuilder contractor decides wants to exit the homebuilding business and go into commercial public construction. Agent had been writing the homebuilder’s insurance for a number of years, and is an experienced surety agent. Gives guidance to principal about suretyship and what a surety generally requires from the standpoint of the 3C’s. 3 February 7, 2012

  4. Principal is told by agent, based upon the requested surety line, that surety required a minimum of $200K of capital. Year-end compilation financial statement reveals capital of $2K with additional paid-in-capital of $495K. Surety writes a number of bid and final bonds for principal. February 7, 2012

  5. Surety requests an interim financial statement. October of the following year presented an interim financial statement which states the APC had been distributed during the year to principal. Surety demands that APC be put back into principal before any final bonds approved. December, principal needs a final bond for $1.3MM February 7, 2012

  6. Surety instructs agent to verify that $500K had been put back into corporation before issuance of final bond. Agent confirms to surety that such accomplished and issues final bonds. What did the agent do to confirm - simply asked the principal if it had done so. No verification from the CPA, no verification from bank records, no other written proof. February 7, 2012

  7. Agent, Principal, and CPA meet with surety u/w in early December after final bonds written, discuss surety needs for subsequent year. U/W tells all present that principal would need working capital position of at least $1MM to support requested L/C, and needs review or better financial statements. CPA audit comes out in late January and shows working capital position in excess of $1MM. It was all a sham! February 7, 2012

  8. SCENARIO NO. 2 New construction venture, which concentrated in building assisted living facilities and express type hotels, and all of which required bonds. The ownership of the principal consisted of an LLC owned by an attorney with no actual construction experience, and a former political figure who had left office under a cloud of ethical violations. Agent never told surety of either of these facts. February 7, 2012

  9. Surety wrote a number of bonds based on the financial condition of the principal alone. After receipt of the first year-end f/s, surety required the principal to be capitalized for an additional $1MM based on the requested surety line of credit. The agent confirmed that the requested $1MM capitalization had occurred by obtaining, from a non-indemnitor, a copy of certificate of deposit which had been issued in the name of the principal in the amount of $1MM. February 7, 2012

  10. The C/D was provided to the agent just before year end in December. The agent did not disclose to the surety who provided the C/D copy other than to state it came from the principal. The agent did not disclose that the C/D was obtained from a potential new additional owner of the principal. True facts regarding the C/D and the capitalization of the principal. February 7, 2012

  11. SCENARIO NO. 3 Agent requested to obtain a subdivision bond for a developer whose construction manager was the husband of the agent CSR. Surety required agent to obtain indemnity from the principal and all owners-7 doctors and 1 CPA-prior to issuance of the bond. Surety sent agent by email, an application indemnity agreement form for execution. February 7, 2012

  12. Agent executed bond and CSR gave to husband along with indemnity application for execution. • It took 6 months after the bond was written by agent to obtain all signatures, but when returned to surety it did not include the first page which contains the indemnity language. • Surety requested the agent to have the indemnity application to be executed again with all pages together. February 7, 2012

  13. Never completed and 6 years later a claim arose. During each year the bond remained in effect the agency was billed, yet it never collected the premium from the developer. The developer went out of business approximately 2 years after the bond was written, but the agent never advised the surety. The agent never advised the surety it did not have the fully completed indemnity application. February 7, 2012

  14. SCENARIO NO. 4 Agent writes a sole proprietorship contractor. Surety requires the indemnity of husband and wife, and agent acts as notary of the signatures to indemnity agreement. Husband proprietor dies and when surety seeks to enforce indemnity agreement wife claims she didn’t sign the indemnity agreement. Agent/notary lacks recall as to indemnity execution.

  15. AGENT RISKS RELATED TO EACH SCENARIO WHAT ARE THE AGENT’S DUTIES TO THE SURETY TO CONCLUDE UNDERWRITING REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE CONDITIONS TO WRITING A BOND? February 7, 2012

  16. WHAT RISKS EXIST FOR THE AGENT WHEN A SURETY PLACES UNDERWRITING REQUIRMENTS AS A CONDITION TO WRITING A BOND AND THE AGENT FAILS TO CONCLUDE THE SATISFACTION OF THOSE UNDERWRITING REQUIREMENTS? DATE OF PRESENTATION

  17. WHAT EFFECT MAY FAILURE TO CONCLUDE UNDERWRITING REQUIREMENTS BY AN AGENT HAVE ON THE SURETY’S RIGHTS IN THE EVENT OF A CLAIM OR BREACH? February 7, 2012

  18. WHO DOES THE AGENT REPRESENT-PRINCIPAL OR SURETY? February 7, 2012

  19. YOUR QUESTIONS? If you do not have the opportunity to have your question addressed during the Seminar, you may contact the presenter directly: Timothy D. Martin Ward, Hocker & Thornton, PLLC tmartin@whtlaw.com (502) 583-7012 19 February 7, 2012

More Related