Contact Us

Market

Social Distancing, Shelter Orders Impede Construction Bonds

Blog, Legislation, Market, News, Repost, Standards, Surety / /

The surety industry is asking federal, state and local officials to take emergency action to update decades-old surety rules requiring stamped notarizations and ink signatures that the Covid-19 pandemic has made impossible or more difficult while social distancing and shelter rules are in place. The industry seeks permission to use electronic signatures without notarization of bond documents. Otherwise, the sureties and bond producers claim, the interruption in the normal issuance of sureties required for most public works and many private projects, could hold up construction projects—and inflict further injury on the economy. Latest Updates on the Coronavirus Pandemic The Surety and Fidelity Association of America, the trade association of sureties, and the National Association of Surety Bond Producers, representing brokers and agents, are asking government officials to act quickly. “Pandemic shelter-in-place requirements,” the two associations said in a joint statement, “make traditional signatures and notary requirements unworkable.” In a letter to Congressional leaders, the two associations pointed out that many federal agencies require surety documents to have “wet ink signatures” on surety bonds and embossed corporate seals on original, printed documents. Stay-at-home orders and adherence to health directives and guidelines make it virtually impossible for bond producers, acting as attorneys-in-fact for surety companies, and their contractor or commercial business clients to sign the surety documents in person.” Unlike other federal agencies, the General Services Administration does accept electronic digital signature technology. An Office of Management and Budget memo issued last month encouraged streamlining of approval processes for critical services. Remote online notarization isn’t a workable alternative, the associations argue, because it has not been approved in many states or become widely used. Where it is approved, it requires prior certification of the notary. “A majority of these construction surety bonds are required for infrastructure projects directly related to health, safety and the growth of our economy,” says SFAA chief executive Lee Covington. “It is imperative to adopt a solution immediately for work on these critical projects to begin and continue, while maintaining important protections for small business construction firms, workers and taxpayers.” Commercial surety bonds are used in other occupations. For example, utility bonds ensure that utilities will be paid on time, license and permit bonds guarantee that regulations and rules are observed and public official bonds provide security in case a public official violates the public trust in handling money or private information. To some extent, says NASBP chief executive Mark McCallum, “Commercial surety is further ahead than contract surety because some commercial surety is more transactional in nature, where the same transaction is performed over and over with more volume.” One of the most recent examples of moving a commercial surety type into an electronic system, adds McCallum, was a result of the mortgage and financial crisis of 2008 and 2009. An electronic system set up for those bonds has been adopted in many states. https://www.enr.com/articles/49104-social-distancing-shelter-orders-impede-construction-bonds

Social Distancing, Shelter Orders Impede Construction Bonds Read More »

Coalition Letter to President Trump on Essential Infrastructure

Blog, Market, News, Repost, Surety / /

April 6, 2020 The PresidentThe White HouseWashington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: We, the undersigned trade and professional organizations representing tens of thousands of firms and individuals engaged in architecture, engineering, surveying and mapping, prime contracting, subcontracting, specialty trade contracting, supplying, construction and program management and surety bond production would like to join with the many other organizations in urging further guidance to clarify “essential Infrastructure” and “essential businesses and services.” As the nation and your Administration contend with the real threats presented by COVID-19, we want to encourage the issuance of exemptions for operations and maintenance of “essential infrastructure” that allows individuals to provide such services that are impossible to perform from home. Such infrastructure should include essential design, construction and related services of public works, including airport operations, roads and highways, public transportation, energy, and of critical importance today, expanding, retrofitting, and rehabilitating structures to meet healthcare and other systems and facilities related COVID-19 production needs. This work is essential to our nation’s ability to deliver what is needed during this emergency. These include medical services and supplies, food, and daily necessary goods to the American people. The current version of DHS guidance, Identification of Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers, continues to have ambiguities that require clarification. We respectfully urge the broadest definition of the services, occupations, and projects our organizations represent so that we serve our fellow citizens, operate in a safe manner in accordance with CDC and other relevant protocols, contribute to the effort to combat COVID-19, and sustain our economy in these difficult times. We look forward to working with you and your Administration so the various related industries we represent can continue our work of providing necessary construction and related services to the nation and doing our part to see us through this pandemic. Sincerely, American Council of Engineering CompaniesAmerican Society of Civil EngineersAmerican Subcontractors AssociationAssociated General Contractors of America​Construction Management Association of AmericaCouncil on Federal Procurement of Architectural and Engineering ServicesDesign-Build Institute of AmericaGeospatial Equipment and Technology InstituteIndependent Electrical Contractors​International Institute of Building Enclosure ConsultantsNational Association of Surety Bond ProducersNational Electrical Contractors AssociationNational Society of Professional SurveyorsSheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National AssociationSubsurface Utility Engineering AssociationSurety & Fidelity Association of AmericaU.S. Geospatial Executives OrganizationWomen Construction Owners & Executives

Coalition Letter to President Trump on Essential Infrastructure Read More »

QBE backs down on trade credit controversy

Blog, Clients, Market, News, Repost / /

Insurance giant QBE has made a dramatic U-turn on its sudden decision to withdraw from the trade credit insurance market following major pushback from the construction industry and the federal opposition. On Saturday QBE told customers it would no longer provide trade credit insurance for businesses with a limit of less than $US250,000 ($410,000), in an effort to protect itself from the fallout from the coronavirus crisis. That meant suppliers selling on credit products worth up to $410,000 would not be insured in the event that some customers failed to make the payment. Many suppliers cannot afford to sell on credit without trade credit insurance. But following a flood of complaints and media scrutiny, including in The Australian Financial Review, and amid warnings that the move could bring much of the construction industry to a screeching halt, QBE said it would reinstate around 7000 of the 9000 blacklisted companies. However they would only be covered for 50 per cent of their original limit. A QBE spokesman said those 7000 businesses included “key businesses in the construction industry whose feedback we have heard and responded to”. Debra Bourke, the owner of the Macarthur Frames and Truss factory in western Sydney that supplies the building industry, many of whose customers were blacklisted by QBE, said the U-turn did not go far enough. Ms Bourke learned of QBE’s original decision on Monday morning from her insurance broker. “I went into a panic situation,” she told the Financial Review before QBE announced its backtrack. “Without that cover I would have no choice but to shut up shop.” She said if building suppliers were forced into hibernation, a big part of the construction industry could be forced to shut down. “If we don’t supply frames and truss to sites, there are no bricklayers, carpenters, plumbers, nothing. It all stops. And then you have millions of people lining up for Centrelink,” she said. She tried to negotiate with QBE for a solution, without success. So she wrote to her local MP, who forwarded her complaint to shadow financial services minister Matt Thistlethwaite. Mr Thistlethwaite called QBE, and after some wrangling, the insurer was persuaded to make some concessions for Ms Bourke She said she was concerned other suppliers to the building industry wouldn’t get the same special treatment. “We are one of those industries that is able to function [during the coronavirus crisis] and not put pressure on the government. But they do this to us and we will just be another tragic story of an industry forced to shut down.” Trade credit insurance policies give the supplier payout limits for each of its customers. If a customer limit is $1 million, the policy will cover the supplier for unpaid invoices of up to $1 million for that customer. At the weekend QBE withdrew cover on a large number of businesses with a limit of $US250,000 ($410,000), and massively reduced cover for all higher limits. The decision did not apply to essential services such as food, pharmaceuticals, agriculture and telecommunications. Construction was not considered essential. Ms Bourke said while she had never had to make a claim, she would not supply on credit without insurance. A Brisbane-based supplier of plasterboard and other building materials to the construction industry, which asked not to be identified, said if QBE followed through with its plan, then it would have to stop supplying those blacklisted companies. “Do I want to offer $300,000 credit without any guarantee? Not in the current climate,” a spokesman for the supplier told the Financial Review. He said the loss of business would likely knock 25 per cent off revenue and force the company to lay off employees, adding his customers would be worse off still, and some might fold. “If we withdraw cover on them, I think there is a chance they will go broke.” Also speaking before QBE’s late announcement, Graham Wolfe, managing director of the Housing Industry Association, said it was difficult to quantify the impact of QBE’s decision on the construction industry, but it would “have a significant impact on thousands of businesses in the building industry “There are some businesses out there whose supplier now has given them zero credit. They are either going to have to find the cash to pay upfront, or they won’t order. “A lot of our members are citing years and years of loyalty and partnership, and this. It comes as a tremendous shock to do it across the book.” He said the consequences for the industry would become apparent within a couple of weeks. Minister for Housing and Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar did not address the specific issue, but said the government would “continue to work with insurance companies who have a responsibility in this Team Australia moment to help their customers get to the other side”. The Financial Review understands QBE has asked the government for help. Matt Thistlethwaite, Labor’s shadow financial services minister, had earlier urged QBE to reconsider its decision. “Many SMEs may not survive, and more workers will end up needlessly entering the unemployment queue. We’ve asked QBE to recondsider their decision at least until insurance contracts are up for renewal. I can understand if they’re talking about new customers, but to do it it mid contract and leave a lot of these business without cover is pretty poor form,” he said. https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/qbe-backs-down-on-trade-credit-controversy-20200402-p54gcj

QBE backs down on trade credit controversy Read More »

Demotech Logo

Demotech Investigates Impact of COVID-19 on Surety Insurance

Blog, Claims, Market, Repost, Surety / /

COLUMBUS, Ohio, April 2, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — The COVID-19 pandemic and the historic federal, state, and local government efforts to mitigate its spread has stopped the economy in its tracks. Social distancing and self-isolation may result in the US unemployment rate reaching record levels. The dialogue on business interruption insurance will continue, whether in the courts or to discuss a federal backstop. At the forefront of the issue of the ability of businesses to perform under stress is surety insurance. The insurer, as surety, is the party that guarantees the performance of another party, often a contractor or a construction project. The contract through which the guarantee is executed is a surety bond. As of December 31, 2019, there were 323 insurers that reported direct premium written for the surety insurance line of business. There are various types of surety insurance; however, the insurers that wrote performance bonds may see a rise in claim frequency and severity as a result of unemployment, constrained cash flows, and other phenomena impacting businesses. Direct premium written (DPW) for surety insurance for the 323 insurers was nearly $6.8 billion at year-end 2019. The top 20 writers, based on all types of surety insurance written, accounted for over $4.4 billion, 65 percent of the industry dollar volume. Surety insurance comprised approximately 17 percent of these top 20 insurers’ books of business and was but 3 percent of the books of business of all carriers writing some surety. Despite the diversification within many of the top 20, surety insurance constituted more than 90 percent of seven insurers’ total 2019 DPW. According to Joseph L. Petrelli, President and co-founder, Demotech, the first company to review and rate independent regional and specialty insurers, “By count, the 323 carriers writing surety insurance are nearly 13% of the Property and Casualty insurers reporting to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. With respect to the impact of COVID-19 on surety insurers writing performance bonds, keep in mind that at the time the performance bonds were written, the economy was humming, competent contractors were likely to be at full capacity, with projects in their pipeline. COVID-19 and the response to mitigate the contagion changed everyone’s world. It is unlikely that insurers writing surety insurance will be spared from future discomfort.” A full article along with a chart of the top 20 writers of Surety Insurance by 2019 DPW can be found here. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/demotech-investigates-impact-of-covid-19-on-surety-insurance-301034239.html

Demotech Investigates Impact of COVID-19 on Surety Insurance Read More »

Don’t Fear Insurance Stocks Despite Covid-19, Says Wall Street

Blog, Market, Repost / /

Insurance stocks have been pummeled by the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak. Business will be affected, and Wall Street is starting to cut its forecasts for the companies’ performance, but there is a disconnect between how far stocks are down and how much estimates are falling. That creates an opportunity, according to some on Wall street. “We’re adjusting EPS estimates and target prices for virtually all of the P&C companies under our coverage,” wrote Keefe, Bruyette & Woods analyst Meyer Shields in a Thursday research report. The reasons for the cuts? Lower reinvestment rates from falling bond yields, higher reinsurance pricing, lower economic activity, Covid-19 exposure, stock-market volatility, and reduced share-repurchase activity. It’s an incredible list of things happening all at once. “Loss experience will worsen for travel, trade credit, event cancellation, surety, accident and health, business interruption, and mortgage and financial guaranty,” adds Shields. But it will “improve for personal auto, commercial auto and workers’ compensation.” Overall, he lowered 2020 earnings estimates for almost 30 insurance providers and insurance brokers, by about 9%. Stocks in the sector, however, are down about 29% year to date on average. The share-price declines prompted a couple of upgrades. Shields upgraded shares of Travelers (ticker: TRV) from the equivalent of Sell to Hold on Thursday. And he boosted shares of the reinsurer Everest Re (RE) to Buy from Hold. Shields points out that high unemployment means fewer claims for workers’ compensation. That’s part of the thinking for upgrading Travelers stock. Travelers shares are down about 30% year to date, worse than the comparable drops of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500. Recent share-price underperformance is one of the reasons he recommends buying Everest Re. Pricing is another reason. “Despite a markedly worse economic outlook, we expect commercial insurance and reinsurance rate increases to persist,” Shields wrote. Everest shares are down about 35% year to date. There is a wide differential in the performance of individual insurance stocks. Shares of the specialty insurer American International Group (AIG) shares, for instance, are down about 60% year to date. Personal-insurance provider Progressive (PGR) stock is up about 3%. Auto insurance—which Progressive offers—is one area of the industry that potentially benefits from Covid-19, given that fewer cars are on the road. In fact, Shields increased 2020 earnings estimates for Allstate (ALL) and Progressive—two companies with auto-insurance franchises. On Wednesday, Wells Fargo analyst Elyse Greenspan raised her estimates for both companies’ first-quarter earnings. (Shields and Greenspan both rate Allstate and Progressive the equivalent of Hold. Shields says AIG shares are a Buy.) The insurance industry looks like it might fare better than most expect through the viral outbreak. Valuation multiples have fallen too. The Russell 3000 Insurance subindex trades for about 10 times estimated 2020 earnings, down from about 15 times at the start of 2020. The current level is close to the lowest point over the past five years. The disconnect between fear of damage to insurers from the Covid-19 pandemic and actual changes to earnings estimates creates opportunities for investors. They will just have to tread lightly, differentiating insurers by lines of business and in terms of liquidity. https://www.barrons.com/articles/airbnb-hosts-coronavirus-cancellations-51585683401

Don’t Fear Insurance Stocks Despite Covid-19, Says Wall Street Read More »

Germany, credit insurers agree plan to keep trade flowing – sources

Blog, Market, News, Repost / /

MUNICH/BERLIN, April 1 (Reuters) – The German government and the country’s credit insurance industry have agreed to help to maintain insurance cover for tradedespite economic hardship related to the coronavirus outbreak, three people with knowledge of the plan said on Wednesday. Under the plan, the government would guarantee up to 30 billion euros ($32.8 billion) for the commercial credit insurance industry, the sources said. In return, the credit insurers are committing to maintain or even extend their coverage and to pay two-thirds of their premiums to the government this year. The credit insurers, along with the government, would also absorb the first 500 million euros in losses. Credit insurance helps to ensure the smooth flow of trade in goods at home and abroad, especially in the retail sector, protecting suppliers against the risk that customers cannot pay. Germany’s biggest trade credit insurer Allianz-owned Euler HermesALVG.DE declined to comment, as did the GDV insurance lobby, the Finance Ministry and the Economics Ministry. The EU Commission is yet to approve the aid programme. It is expected in the next few days, one source said. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-germany-credit-insurers-agree-plan-to-keep-trade-flowing-sources-2020-04-01

Germany, credit insurers agree plan to keep trade flowing – sources Read More »

13-lisbon-valley

Mine ordered to mitigate environmental harm; reclamation contractor is working without pay

Blog, Claims, Market, Repost, Surety / /

In response to the abrupt closing of the Lisbon Valley Copper Mine, Director John Baza of the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining has signed an emergency order, according to a statement from the division. The order requires that the operator contains and/or reclaims any and all facilities at the mine to the extent necessary to immediately prevent any imminent threat of environmental harm. If the operator fails to take immediate action to ensure the environmental harms are mitigated, the division will undertake emergency actions to forfeit the full amount of the surety bond. A surety bond ensures monies are available to the division for reclamation in the event the company defaults on its permit. The emergency order will apply until the next Board of Oil, Gas and Mining Board Hearing scheduled for April 22. An inspector from the Bureau of Land Management inspected the site early Friday. A division inspector is now onsite. “Our main objective is to ensure the facility poses no threat to the surrounding environment and that there are no risks to public safety,” said a statement from the division. According to the operator’s annual report, the mine is 984 acres in size and includes four pits, one leach pad, approximately four water process ponds, and several buildings. On Monday, March 23, inspectors from the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining confirmed for the operator steps that will need to be taken to avoid potential off-site impacts. Any work that’s done can only be shutdown or reclamation related; no production work can occur. The surety that holds the bond for Lisbon Valley Mining Company has been contacted while a contractor develops a shutdown plan for the mine. The surety bond ensures money if available for reclamation work in the event a company defaults on its payment, according to the Division. The contractor, like the furloughed employees, is not being paid and has warned state officials “it will be hard to keep up their environmental protection measures if they can’t pay for supplies, fuel and wages,” but they will continue to work. The Division said it could fund the contractor as a stopgap measure and seek reimbursement later.

Mine ordered to mitigate environmental harm; reclamation contractor is working without pay Read More »

swissre-logo

Swiss Re Americas Issues Public Comment on Treasury’s Fiscal Service Bureau

Blog, Clients, Market, News, Repost, Surety / /

WASHINGTON, March 6 — Matthew Wulf, head of state regulatory affairs at Swiss Re Americas, Armonk, New York, has issued a public comment on the U.S. Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service notice entitled “Surety Companies Doing Business with the United States; Request for Information”. The comment was written on Feb. 13, 2020, and posted on March 5, 2020: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service’s (Bureau) Request for Information (RFI) on the corporate federal surety bond program. The most important element Treasury and the Bureau can address to modernize and improve the surety bond program is to reconcile the inconsistency between state insurance regulation and the Bureau’s current practice regarding recognized credit for reinsurance and required collateral. Treasury should amend its rules to: (1) allow credit for reinsurance that is provided by reinsurers that meet certain stringent requirements such as those contained in the covered agreements and the recently revised NAIC Credit for Reinsurance models and (2) eliminate collateral requirements for non-US reinsurers from reciprocal jurisdictions that are recognized at the state level as meeting stringent requirements protecting U.S. ceding insurers. The Bureau has a historic view that uncollateralized reinsurance recoverables of a non-US reinsurer may not be counted as an asset for a capital and surplus calculation. This position is out of step with the authoritative sources of reinsurance collateral regulation in the United States, i.e., standards set by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in 2010 and codified in all states’ laws and regulations. Additionally, it is inconsistent with the purpose of the Dodd-Frank Act, Title V, and recent US-EU and US-UK covered agreements. Thus, the inconsistency exists not only between the Bureau and state law, but also between the Bureau and federal law, and within Treasury itself, between the Bureau and the Federal Insurance office (FIO). A minor change to the application process, data considered, and the analytical methods used in evaluating financial condition will resolve this inconsistency and will not result in diminished protection of US government interests. The Bureau should revise its practices and rules regarding credit for reinsurance to align analysis by Treasury with the analysis conducted by state insurance regulators. Additionally, Treasury’s collateral requirements should be consistent with those it has directed state regulators to adopt and those that Treasury has itself negotiated in the covered agreements. These changes will not negatively affect the ultimate ability of a surety company to carry out its contracts and will not harm the financial interests of the United States or its taxpayers. As the Bureau of Fiscal Service explores ways to modernize and improve how it evaluates the financial condition of companies seeking to underwrite and reinsure federal surety bonds or act as admitted reinsurers, it is important to appreciate that notwithstanding the “doing business with the United States” scope of Treasury’s regulation, it has been historically de facto regulation of both governmental and non-governmental surety bond business. Thus, the scope of consideration must go beyond strictly federal surety interests. Responses to specific RFI questions Because Swiss Re’s comments all center on the treatment of credit for reinsurance, the following should be considered responsive to the RFI questions 1, 3, 4 and 5. The practice by the Bureau of Fiscal Service of not recognizing uncollateralized reinsurance that is otherwise recognized on company statutory financial statements by the states is inconsistent with the primacy of state regulation, inconsistent with public policy enshrined in the US-EU and US-UK covered agreements, punitive to companies complying with state prudential insurance regulation, and it does nothing to further protect the financial interests of the United States or its taxpayers. US public policy on reinsurance regulatory collateral requirements has been clearly articulated by Treasury through the Federal Insurance Office via the covered agreements and establishes that financially sound, well-regulated companies may provide creditable reinsurance to US cedents without the need for 100% regulatory collateral. The decision to move from a 100% collateral system for non-US assuming insurers to a system based on financial soundness, business practice, and regulatory reliability was made after years of debate and has proven to be sound public policy. Since non-US assuming insurers began providing reinsurance without 100% collateral in 2010, there has been no corresponding increase in uncollectible reinsurance. In order to be eligible to provide creditable reinsurance to US cedents, non-US reinsurers must comply with rigorous financial statement/condition filing requirements at the state level and their home country must be vetted and approved by a state as a qualified or reciprocal jurisdiction. A Bureau of Fiscal Service determination of credit for reinsurance on a separate basis than the states undermines the state-based insurance regulatory system in the US and could be the basis for a US state to challenge the preemptive authority of the FIO to enforce the covered agreements. Because the Bureau of the Fiscal Service and FIO both sit in Treasury, the failure of one office to recognize the public policy set by another establishes the argument that an integral purpose of the covered agreements is frustrated and without meaning, and therefore is unenforceable. Further, a second key element of the covered agreements is the recognition of US state regulatory authority and prohibition against local presence and other doing business requirements abroad. If the EU or UK believes a covered agreement is not being enforced, non-US countries will be able to retaliate against US companies doing business internationally. Fiscal Service could accomplish the proper credit for reinsurance recognition solely through the annual letter. However, if a change in regulation for clarity is desired, the following amendment to section 223.9 is recommended (new language underlined): Sec. 223.9 Valuation of assets and liabilities. In determining the financial condition of every such company, its assets and liabilities will be computed in accordance with the guidelines contained in the Treasury’s current Annual Letter to Executive Heads of Surety Companies. However, the Secretary of the Treasury may value the assets and liabilities of such companies in his discretion.

Swiss Re Americas Issues Public Comment on Treasury’s Fiscal Service Bureau Read More »

hudson-logo

Surety’s claims against bank fail [Hudson]

Blog, Claims, Court, Market, Repost, Surety / /

A surety that paid out more than $3.7 million in claims failed in its attempt to sue the principal’s bank because its claims were time-barred, a negligence claim failed as a matter of law, there was no confidential relationship as required for a constructive fraud claim and the elements of breach of trust, constructive trust or accounting were not satisfied. Background In 2009, Andy Persaud, president of Persaud Companies Inc., or PCI, opened an account at the Bank of Georgetown. In December 2010, Persaud established a bonding program with Hudson Insurance Company, a surety that agreed to issue payment and performance bonds on PCI’s behalf. In the course of underwriting the bonding program, Hudson’s agent obtained from Persaud documents showing all banks with a security interest in PCI as well as the promissory note and loan documents between PCI and the bank. In late 2011, Persaud requested an expansion of the bonding program. Hudson agreed to execute an amended general indemnity agreement on two conditions: first, that an additional indemnitor be added, and second, that all funds from contracts relating to the agreement run through a third-party escrow account. Gary W. Day agreed to serve as a second indemnitor in exchange for payment to Day of 1% of the face amount of all bonds issued by Hudson. A few months later in the spring of 2012, Hudson began receiving claims on PCI’s projects. Hudson ultimately lost $3.7 million by paying out claims related to PCI. Hudson and Day obtained default judgments against PCI and Persaud, who is believed to be penniless. Day obtained the assignment of Hudson’s claims against the bank. Day asserts that, had Hudson been aware of the nature of the banking relationship between Persaud and the bank, it would never have agreed to issue the bonds on which it suffered losses. Analysis The district court held Day failed to state a claim and so dismissed his suit, and, alternatively, granted summary judgment finding all of Day’s claims time-barred. With respect to the latter, it recognized that, under Maryland law, an action only accrues when the claimant in fact knew or was on inquiry notice of the alleged wrong. The court concluded that Day was on inquiry notice no later than October 2011, when Day, Hudson, and Persaud executed the amended general indemnity agreement. At that time, Hudson was already concerned about the state of Persaud’s finances and possessed the bank’s UCC filing and the loan documents memorializing the agreement between the bank and Persaud. We agree with the district court’s analysis. The latest Day could have filed suit within the limitations period was therefore October 2014; he did not actually file suit until April 2016. Day’s claim is therefore time-barred. We also agree that Day’s complaint fails to state a claim. The district court rejected Day’s negligence claim on multiple grounds, concluding that the statute did not establish a duty to Day on the part of the bank and that Maryland law precluded Day’s recovery in tort for purely  economic losses. Next, the court dismissed Day’s attempts to sue directly under the anti-assignment act, concluding that Day lacked a cause of action and that there was no authority to support his argument that he may be subrogated to the government. Day’s constructive fraud claim also failed because, as the district court explained, Day could show neither violation of a duty nor the existence of a confidential relationship between Day and the bank, both necessary prerequisites to stating a constructive fraud claim. Finally, the district court properly dismissed Day’s counts seeking equitable relief, noting that Day could not meet the elements of breach of trust, constructive trust or accounting. This analysis is sound. Affirmed. Day v. United Bank, Appeal No. 18-1961, Feb. 20, 2020. 4th Cir. (per curiam), from DMD at Greenbelt (Xinis). David Hilton Wise for Appellant, Richard E. Hagerty for Appellee. VLW 020-2-036. 6 pp.

Surety’s claims against bank fail [Hudson] Read More »

Surety Market to See Incredible Growth During (2020-2027)

Blog, Market, Surety / /

Latest market study on “Surety Market to 2027 by Bond Type (Contract Surety Bond, Commercial Surety Bond, Fidelity Surety Bond, and Court Surety Bond) -Global Analysis and Forecast”, the surety Market is estimated to reach US$ 28.77 Bn by 2027 from US$ US$ 15.33 Bn in 2018. The report include key understanding on the driving factors of this growth and also highlights the prominent players in the market and their developments. Surety Bonds are obtained by principal parties to protect third parties from a failure to meet contractual obligations. There are four main types of bonds that serve the different purpose namely: contract surety bond, commercial surety bond, fidelity surety bond, and court surety bond. The most common surety bonds are the commercial and contract surety bond and serve the purpose of protecting the public and private interests. The court and fidelity surety bonds protect against the litigation and theft. Surety bonds of all types cost a premium based on the performance of the business and credit score of the business owner, which is between 1-15% of the bond value. For More Information Ask For Sample Report @ https://www.theinsightpartners.com/sample/TIPRE00002849/ Company Profiles American Financial Group, Inc. AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. Chubb Limited CNA Financial Corporation Crum & Forster Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. HCC Insurance Holdings IFIC Surety Group Liberty Mutual Insurance Company The Travelers Indemnity Company The global surety market for the bond type is fragmented into Contract Surety Bond, Commercial Surety Bond, Fidelity Surety Bond, and Court Surety Bond. Commercial Bonds are general surety bonds that are required by various government agencies state local or federal. Commercial bonds are primarily used by companies or working professionals as per state licensing and permit regulations. Commercial bonds are easy to qualify as they incur low-risk. Commercial bonds protect the general public from that interact with the principal being licensed. The claim is made by someone who faced losses due to the violation of rules and regulations by the bonded principal. The agency checks various parameters before fixing the bond amount such as the number of employees, number of physical locations, and the type of business. Usually, the commercial bonds are annual bonds that are to be renewed every year in some cases bonds are also required for multi-year increments like service tax bond. Further, surety market is expected to experience significant growth in the coming years due to the increasing demand of commercial bonds. The commercial bonds are gaining popularity in the markets of North America and Europe. Commercial bonds are replacing LOC as they provide a better method for risk management. Purchase this Premium Report @ https://www.theinsightpartners.com/buy/TIPRE00002849/ Reasons to Buy: Save and reduce time carrying out entry-level research by identifying the growth, size, leading players and segments in the global surety market Highlights key business priorities in order to assist companies to realign their business strategies The key findings and recommendations highlight crucial progressive industry trends in the global surety market, thereby allowing players across the value chain to develop effective long-term strategies Develop/modify business expansion plans by using substantial growth offering developed and emerging markets Scrutinize in-depth global market trends and outlook coupled with the factors driving the market, as well as those hindering it Enhance the decision-making process by understanding the strategies that underpin commercial interest with respect to client products, segmentation, pricing and distribution. Contact Us Contact Person: Sameer Joshi Phone: +1-646-491-9876 Email Id: [email protected] About The Insight Partners: The Insight Partners is a one stop industry research provider of actionable intelligence. We help our clients in getting solutions to their research requirements through our syndicated and consulting research services. We specialize in industries such as Semiconductor and Electronics, Aerospace and Defense, Automotive and Transportation, Biotechnology, Healthcare IT, Manufacturing and Construction, Medical Device, Technology, Media and Telecommunications, Chemicals and Materials.

Surety Market to See Incredible Growth During (2020-2027) Read More »

#Surety #SuretyBonds #SuretyTech #InsurTech #AI #FutureProof

Subscribe

Follow Us

Linkedin Facebook

Copyright © 2024, Bond-Pro, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Terms | Privacy

Scroll to Top
Document